The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Edinburgh on Monday, 31 October? Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Norway: State Visits

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as Secretary of the British-Norwegian All-Party Parliamentary Group.
	The Question was as follows:
	When they plan to meet members of the new Norwegian Government.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we look forward to establishing a good working relationship with Prime Minister Stoltenberg and his Government. The new Norwegian foreign, justice and energy Ministers are currently accompanying their Majesties King Harald and Queen Sonja on their special visit to the United Kingdom. They met the Prime Minister yesterday and had separate meetings with their British counterparts today. Mr Stoltenberg is also in London today for a dinner with European Labour leaders.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I am sure that he will join at least us on this side of the House in congratulating Mr Stoltenberg on a remarkable election victory on 12 September. It created the first left-of-centre majority in Norway for 20 years. Is my noble friend aware that, as we celebrate Norway's centenary as an independent state—as he said, we welcome the King and Queen of Norway—in a survey of 177 nations conducted by the United Nations, Norway, for the fifth year running, came top as the most desirable place in the world in which to live because of its ability to combine economic prosperity, a strong welfare state and a clean environment? Did he see in the Guardian the comment that if the Norwegians could bottle and sell their secret to the rest of us, they would be even richer than they are already?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do of course congratulate Prime Minister Stoltenberg on his election victory, as indeed I congratulate Norway on celebrating today—26 October—exactly 100 years as an independent nation. We are delighted to welcome their Majesties on their special visit to the United Kingdom and to cement the close friendship which exists between the two countries. What Norway is bottling and selling to the rest of us is enormous oil and gas reserves. Careful management of those revenues through the petroleum fund enables Norwegians to benefit from a very high standard of living.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, we greatly welcome the visit of their Majesties and the centenary of a country that has been very close to us ever since its independence. The Minister has quite rightly referred to the oil and gas resources of Norway. Does he accept that, in the next few years, we will probably be drawing up to one fifth of our total daily gas needs from Norwegian waters? Does he further accept that enormous supplies of both oil and gas—it is said to be up to five North Seas' worth—may in future become accessible at reasonable cost in the high north Barents Sea, which could change the whole geopolitics of oil and reduce our dependence on the Middle East? Does not all this add up to the fact that we need to stay extremely close to this wonderful but small country? That is why we greatly welcome this state visit and our continued friendship with the brave people of Norway.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I echo those sentiments. Norway may be small in population terms but it is quite big geographically. It has been a steadfast friend. I have no doubt that trading arrangements, including in energy, will be very important to us all in the future. I do not want to guess at what the energy supply proportions will be because new fields are being discovered in all sectors. It may well be that those proportions will be affected by discoveries. The closeness of the relationship will certainly be sustained; I say that with complete assurance.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, do the Government intend to give more publicity to the excellent co-operation that the British Armed Forces have with Norwegian and other Nordic armed forces? I have heard people from defence ministries of Nordic countries comment on how constructive a contribution the British have been making, for example, towards the development of a Nordic battle group. I am sorry we do not hear this in London. Would the Government care to think about perhaps a public parade or something similar to celebrate the extent to which British and Nordic Armed Forces now work closely together?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we do work closely together. I like to feel that is in a real measure due to our own contribution, but of course it is also due to the far-sightedness of the Norwegian Government. I was intrigued to see that at any one time 1 per cent of the Norwegian police are deployed as peacekeepers in difficult parts of the world. Their military missions, often run together with us and under blue-hatted auspices, are a real contribution to peacekeeping. It is the kind of relationship that is invaluable and I think that both parties contribute to it a great deal.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I welcome all the good things that have been said regarding Norway and the Norwegians but does the Minister think if I went to Norway I would be allowed to smoke my pipe there?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have not the smallest idea. Not only that, but I have had a studied indifference to pipe-smoking all my life.

Lord Elton: My Lords, declaring an interest both as vice-president of the British-Norwegian Parliamentary Group and as the son of a Norwegian mother, I ask the noble Lord, further to his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, whether he has noted the way in which the Norwegians have introduced the subject of conflict resolution into their education programme. They are developing the skill more and more within their society. Should we not do something similar ourselves?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is scope for conflict resolution in the civic parts of the school agenda. I would like to look at that proposition in more detail with colleagues from the Department for Education and Skills, because plainly a sense of conflict resolution in the modern world must be invaluable.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, being part-Norwegian and a former chairman of the British-Norwegian Parliamentary Group, I join in the hymn of praise to say that we share many prejudices. Does my noble friend agree that there is a great mutuality of interest, not only in the oil field but as loyal partners in NATO, where the Norwegians contribute much, in Afghanistan, and also in terms of police training in Iraq? We share an enormous interest, which will be furthered by this royal visit.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it will be furthered by the royal visit, and by the presence of so many distinguished Ministers from the new Norwegian Government in the United Kingdom. I assure the House we will be working closely with them to achieve exactly the objectives that my noble friend has described.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, reference has been made to the supply of gas from Norway. Is the Minister aware that some 30 years ago I was active in the coal industry? I was responsible for supplying substantial quantities of coal and coke to Norway. I impatiently await the resumption of that trade.

Lord Triesman: And there I was, my Lords, imagining that I would not be answering any more energy questions for the time being. I am sure the relationship that was struck up in trading terms by the noble Lord will be fulfilled on the other side by the points that have been made about imports of energy.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we must move on.

Iraq: Security Forces

Baroness Williams of Crosby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps are being taken by the coalition forces in Iraq, in conjunction with the Iraq Government, to protect Iraqi citizens seeking to be recruited to the country's security forces.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, as my predecessor told the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I cannot go into the details of this for obvious reasons, but practical measures include physical protection; detailed briefs to the Iraqi security force on prevalent threats; advice on force protection for training centres and police stations; the provision of body armour and helmets as part of the overall equipment programme; and enhanced operational security. We continue to provide this support to the Iraqi security forces, and look forward to the day when they can take full responsibility for the security of a stable, democratic Iraq.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and draw attention particularly to his final sentence where he points out that we are heavily dependent on the future of the Iraq security forces in order to enable us to relieve the burden of having so many troops in Iraq at the present time. However, is he aware of the casualty rate in September alone? In that month alone—according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, whose facts have not been questioned by the US Government—498 members of the security forces lost their lives. That is a rate of over 3 per cent of the total strength of the Iraq security forces. In particular, is he aware that, on 27 September in Baquba, no fewer than 12 would-be police recruits lost their lives and 30 others were seriously wounded, and that on the following day, in Tal Afar, seven would-be recruits to the Iraqi army were killed and another 37 wounded? Would the Minister care to comment on what steps we can take to protect these loyal and courageous people?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the tragic loss of life in the Iraqi security forces. It is absolutely fundamental that we do everything that we can to help the forces as they gain strength to develop the capability to be able to defend themselves properly and to take over the security of Iraq. I am able to report this week in the House that 206,000 members of the security forces are now in place. As noble Lords will remember, last week the figure was 200,000 and the week before 190,000. A significant increase in numbers is taking place. The key to their protection is in the adoption of the knowledge that we developed in Northern Ireland in the work that we do. I am afraid that I cannot go into the details in the House, but I can say that we are seeing an improvement in the capability of the security forces in their operations in Iraq.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the democracy and stability to which he referred in Iraq has taken a great step forward with the resounding vote recently in favour of the constitution?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the result of the vote on the constitution is an important step on the road towards democracy in Iraq. It keeps the political process on track towards the elections on 15 December. The fact that there was such a high turnout in the referendum—in particular the Sunni engagement in the vote—is a very good sign.

Lord Garden: My Lords, we know with incredible precision how many of the multinational forces have died since the intervention. Can the Minister tell us how many members of the Iraqi security forces, which the original Question was about, recruits and trained, have died in the British sector—the one for which we have responsibility? If he cannot, what will he do in order to get the data so that we know whether we are making improvements?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I do not have in my brief the data on the numbers within the areas for which we are responsible in the detail that the noble Lord requests. I shall write to him with the information which we currently have, set out in as much detail as I am able to give him.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that there are more than 200,000 members of the security forces. What use are security people if they do not have the equipment to do their job, and why are the Americans and the British failing to provide them with all the equipment they need?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we are not failing to provide them with the equipment that they need. I saw for myself when I visited Basra and in particular the Al-Shaibah logistics base the equipment that we are providing—ranging, as I mentioned, from body armour and armoured Land Rovers to equipment such as uniforms. Most importantly, it includes training in command and control to enable the Iraqi security forces to be able to meet the threats that they face. It is not correct to say that we are not equipping them properly.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, would the Minister like to comment on a report that appeared in the newspapers on Sunday that the size of the Iraqi forces has been overstated by a factor of 50 per cent upwards because the commanders wish to cash the money for the numbers that are alleged?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a point that has been mentioned in the press. It is not a point that we accept. From what we have seen, the capability that has been developed by the Iraqi security forces is impressive. The numbers we believe to be correct. We are seeing their improvement in capability.
	Let me give a clear example of that capability in action. The fact that we had the turn-out in the vote was down to the ability of the security forces, remembering that the security for the vote was under the leadership of the Iraqi forces. The lockdown put in place for the vote clearly shows that those allegations are unfounded.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that sobering as the figures quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are, and dreadful as we all acknowledge that loss of life to be, none the less, volunteers for the Iraqi security forces continue to be recruited? They are volunteers; the situation is not as it was in the days of Saddam Hussein. While those young men are willing to put their lives on the line for Iraq's future they deserve our support.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend. The losses that the Iraqi security forces are taking are indeed tragic and of real concern. We are doing everything that we can to help them mitigate those losses and develop their capability.
	We should pay tribute in this House to the bravery of those young men—and women in some cases—in the way in which they are working to develop control over their own security. We have 115 Iraqi security force battalions in place. There is a degree of capability that needs to develop. Training has some way to go, but we are determined to provide it.

Royal Parks: Funding

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to increase their financial support to the Royal Parks.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the funding provided by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Royal Parks will be increased by £500,000 in 2007–08. Funding to all the department's non-departmental public bodies and its executive agency, the Royal Parks, will be considered at the next spending round in 2007.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, is he aware that those running the Royal Parks are saying that because they are not getting enough money from the Government, they are holding more and more huge, commercial, profit-making events in the parks? They cause great disturbance to residents and to those using the roads; and, most importantly, they deny people the use of the park for normal activities as great swathes are occupied by such events, to which many people cannot afford to go. Is the Minister satisfied with that state of affairs?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has certainly been forthright in her complaint about one event in Regent's Park. She seems not to have been joined by any other member of the public in that complaint.
	The overall position is that the parks are reducing the numbers of commercial events. They play an important part in funding and we see no reason why the Royal Parks should not from time to time entertain the nation by putting on events that are greatly appreciated. An event such as Live 8 took no profit, although other events do. The noble Baroness is right in her contention that the Royal Parks' main priority is the nation's enjoyment of their intrinsic value, not commercial profit.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, on the matter of funding, does my noble friend agree that unless all control is removed from the DCMS budget or the Royal Parks start charging, it is essential that they engage in fundraising through the Royal Parks foundation and other means? Will my noble friend confirm that the Royal Parks are constrained in the number and scale of events that they organise, which produce less than a quarter of their self-generated income, that they consult courteously and extensively about those events, and that such events are popular with a great many Londoners?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I confirm that the Royal Parks are obliged to consult and do so extensively when major events are put on. As I have indicated, the number of such events was less last year than the previous year. The Royal Parks are all too well aware of their major obligation, which is to maintain their wonderful facilities for the enjoyment of all who visit London. But, of course, as my noble friend indicated, they supplement their resources by holding certain commercial events. These commercial events are extremely profitable for the parks but they also generate a great deal of interest among Londoners and overseas visitors and add to our advantages in those terms.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister talked about the popularity of the Royal Parks but the Government's grant is being reduced in real terms by 7.5 per cent over the next three years. As the noble Baroness indicated, that in turn has led to a greater commercialisation of events in the park. Where is the event strategy that was promised last year by the Minister to ensure that these commercial events are appropriate and do not cause a nuisance to residents?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Minister did, indeed, give an undertaking regarding an events strategy. The Royal Parks are working to such a strategy. That is why, as I indicated, they are not increasing the number of commercial events; they are actually reducing them. However, they are, of course, taking advantage of those commercial events which are highly popular and they do, from time to time, respond to the needs of the nation, not just to those of Londoners or visitors from overseas but to the needs of the nation as regards being showcases for major events which the whole nation enjoys and which, I must say, redound often to the credit of everyone.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the gardeners of the Royal Parks who, since my youth, have so vastly improved the floral display in all the main London Royal Parks? We all know about Queen Mary's rose garden but the gardens on Park Lane, in front of Buckingham Palace and in St James's Park have so improved and are a joy to see. When I first came to this House, in the House of Commons there was a great deal of worry about the amount of fig leaves being stolen from the statue of Achilles. At the time I was assured by the then Minister that there was a large supply of spare fig leaves. Does that still exist?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on the latter point we probably rely on the fact that the morals of the nation are improving and therefore such a measure is not so necessary. I, of course, agree with the noble Baroness that in a nation which is so committed to gardening, as so many of our fellow citizens are, one of our glories comprises the showcases of our national parks in view of the work which is done in their extensive gardens.

Lord Luke: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when the RPA makes a move, such as introducing a new event at one of the Royal Parks, it is required to consult, and to listen to, neighbouring local authorities?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a very important point. The Royal Parks are aware of the fact that from time to time there has been anxiety about the size of events and about the fact that inevitably they interfere with public enjoyment of the parks. The parks have a policy of undertaking the fullest consultation. They want to minimise disruption to the wider public and to those who border the parks and those who might be directly affected. I assure the noble Lord that full consultation takes place.

Iraq: Coalition Forces

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What polling has been done by the coalition in Iraq to evaluate Iraqi attitudes towards the presence of coalition forces in Iraq; and what the results were.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the coalition has conducted regular polling in Iraq since early 2004 to improve our understanding of ordinary Iraqis' priorities and concerns. The polling assesses attitudes towards governance, democratic participation, security and media use. The attitude towards the presence of coalition forces forms part of that assessment although it is not the primary purpose of the polling activity.
	The results show that, overall, the majority of Iraqis believe that they are better off currently than they had been under the previous regime.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. In the light of it, will he comment on the report on the BBC website and in certain newspapers on Sunday that the MoD commissioned a poll carried out by an Iraqi university which showed that 85 per cent of Iraqis were opposed to the presence of American and British troops, up to 65 per cent supported attacks on those troops, and only 1 per cent thought that security had improved as a result of the presence of American and British troops? If that is correct, does it not show that we have a tremendous distance to go to win hearts and minds in Iraq?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the leak reported by a newspaper on this polling. As I have said, I can confirm that such polling has taken place. Clearly, there is a degree of concern within the Iraqi population about the presence of coalition forces. It is also clear that the Iraqi Government wish those forces to continue to support what is being done as Iraq moves towards democracy—to create a situation where improvements can take place. I can do no better than to quote President Talabani, who has said within the last month:
	"To abandon us now would be murderously irresponsible and cynical".

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the reported figures are inaccurate?

Lord Drayson: No, my Lords, I am not commenting on the accuracy or otherwise of the figures. I am not commenting on whether—

Noble Lords: Why not?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the polling results. There are important security considerations relating to the carrying out of this polling, which affect the personnel who undertake it. Our ability to undertake that polling is important for us to have a good grip on the progress being made, or otherwise, of the actions that we are taking in Iraq. The fact that statements are being made on possible leaks from such reports does not mean that I should be confirming to your Lordships' House the accuracy, or otherwise, of confidential polling.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government are taking those polling data. Does the Minister agree that it is essential, in any successful counter-insurgency strategy, to separate the broad mass of the population from the insurgents? We need this polling, but we also need to know what the trend lines are. The Minister does not need to give us the percentage, but is it getting better or worse as regards the general attitudes of the Iraqi people, and hence the support for the insurgency?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his understanding of the very real concerns about the security of the people carrying out polling. He is right that it is possible for me to talk about trends. Clearly, we have seen consistent trends in the concerns of the Iraqi people about the presence of coalition forces. We have seen an improvement in the level of Iraqi people's confidence in their own security forces, which is an important point. There is increasing evidence of that effectiveness, demonstrated by the progress towards democracy. We need to recognise that our strategy will be achieved only if we match our efforts on the security front with those being made with the hearts and minds of people on the ground. We need to measure it and know what it is. Our ability to do so would be prejudiced by detailed debates on the answers in this House.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, as someone who unconditionally supported the Government for the invasion of Iraq—and advocated it right through from 1997—I put it to my noble friend that he should reconsider the position of the Government. Will he now consider asking the Secretary of State whether it would be possible to put this material in the public domain?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. Our ability to measure those things within Iraqi society as it develops is key to our ability to ensure that our work is effective and that we are aligning that work with security reforms, the reconstruction of Iraq and the democratic process. If we get into the business of making a running commentary on these results on a monthly basis, as they come in, we prejudice the ability to work effectively. We really cannot do that.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord please ensure that the matter is looked at again? He confirmed to my noble friend that the polling takes place. In his original answer he gave us part of the answer, which suited the Government's case, but he is now refusing to give the rest of the answer that may not suit their case. Is there not a real issue here about the morale of our armed services and the understanding in this country of what they are doing and whether they are achieving what they have set out to do? The Government have evidence; surely, in the general interest, that evidence should be made public.

Lord Drayson: No, my Lords, this is not about us talking about the evidence that supports the Government's case and not talking about that which does not. I can talk about the general trends, as I have done for the noble Lord opposite who asked the Question. We have indicated what it tells us. I have explained frankly to the House the reasons why we cannot go into the detail, and those reasons are clear. It would be prejudicial. I will certainly go back and look at the matter again. That is my understanding of the situation, but the case made already was extremely compelling.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, time is up. Thirty minutes is game, set and match. I have a brief Business Statement. My noble friend Lord Bach will repeat a Statement on avian flu. We shall take it as soon as we conveniently can after 4.45 pm.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Motions standing in the name of the Lord Evans of Temple Guiting to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness O'Cathain.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Crawley.)

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the question that I put on Report has been answered? Will the Government, in association with the IMO, do their best to facilitate visits to the IMO—which after all is not very far from here—by Members of both Houses? It is important that issues of international shipping should be more readily understood. It may be that only a minority are involved, but will the Minister do her best to facilitate such visits?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords. We discussed this matter, and I undertook to have a good look at it because I felt that my noble friend spoke a lot of sense on increasing communications between our organisations. I am in the process of talking to the department about it.
	On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
	Clause 29 [Fee for renewal of photocard licence and issue of certain alternative licences]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hanningfield: I give notice of my intention to oppose Clause 29 standing part of the Bill. It would, in short, introduce a renewal fee for driving licences after a period of 10 years and a fee for changes to name and address that are, at present, free. I remain to be convinced that this is nothing more than another stealth tax. We will oppose these measures at every opportunity during the passage of the Bill. It seems implausible that, once one has obtained a licence for a fixed period, one must not only surrender it, but pay for the privilege of having a replacement supplied, under requirements of the European Union, perhaps, or the Government.
	It is wrong in principle that someone who has a licence, and has looked after it perfectly well, should have to pay for a replacement. That is not what happens with bank cards, or any other document. When the provider decides it is out of date, it is replaced. Replacement of a licence because a driver is at fault is a completely different matter.
	Why is there suddenly a desire to make us renew our driving licences every 10 years? What is the rationale apart from, as I said, introducing another tax? Why should people be charged for moving home, getting married or even for becoming a Peer? When we change our address, we now have to pay no money when we inform the DVLA. Surely people would be less likely to inform the authorities of such changes in personal details if it attracts a fee? This, in turn, would have serious implications for the police and other authorities that depend upon an up-to-date vehicle register for many of their inquiries.
	The concept that has been followed in the past is that all government revenue goes into the Consolidated Fund, and all expenses come out of it. In such circumstances, if one considers the Consolidated Fund payments that drivers make through road and fuel tax, one can argue that they have already paid enough and that they are entitled to receive free of charge what they have always received free of charge in the past. That is why we cannot agree to this clause. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. He will recognise that the DVLA started issuing photocard licences in 1998. They are valid for a 10-year period, so the first licence will be renewed in 2008.
	The costs of driver services have always been covered by driver fees in accordance with the principles in the Treasury's Fees and Charges Guide 1992. As a trading fund, the DVLA is required to promote efficiency and to ensure that, in providing its services, it provides value for money for taxpayers—including, of course, non-drivers. The current "user pays" principle of recouping costs from drivers for the issue of a licence and the maintenance of their driver record enables the DVLA to provide its services efficiently and without additional costs to all taxpayers. That must surely be just.
	Of course, the DVLA is keen to explore a range of options for financing its various driver licensing and vehicle licensing transactions. I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, makes about this particular issue. The DVLA is in discussions with the Treasury, and is engaging its stakeholders in a series of workshops aimed at identifying the range of funding options, which will then be subject to public consultation. The DVLA is seeking this power so that, should all other options be found to be unacceptable, the agency will still be able to fund the renewal of the photocard, which is obviously a duty upon it.
	I hear what the noble Lord says. The DVLA is concerned to consult and look at the range of funding for the services which it renders. The noble Lord must recognise, however, the justice of this agency seeking to take as little as possible from the general taxpayer when, in fact, the services are provided to the driver. I hope he accepts that point.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that answer. Perhaps he could comment further. The issue we are worried about is change of address. As I said, it could lead to people not letting the authorities know when they move. Surely the organisation should look at the matter in terms of efficiency? I hear what the Minister says about consultation, and that it might not happen. One is accustomed to being told that, and yet eventually these things happen. There could be charges for things like change of address. I would like the Minister to expand on why the organisation could not recover some of these costs through efficiency, and the Government's attitude towards charging for some of these things.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I do not have a great deal to add on the principles behind the charging, but I assure the noble Lord that we bear in mind that there may be a deterrent to some to comply with the law. He will know that we are taking extensive measures to ensure compliance with the law, with regard to driving licence, vehicle licence and insurance. We have in hand some significant proposals for improving efficiency in the area; some are contained in the Bill. Compliance will be achieved through such means.
	The noble Lord cited the change of address, presumably while the licence was still valid.

Lord Hanningfield: Disabled people and the elderly often change addresses rather more than some other people, so there are concerns that there may be another charge on them.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The charge is for the renewal of the licence. There will be no fee for notifying change of address.

Lord Hanningfield: We must look further at the Minister's response. With that, I shall not pursue this course today.

Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Driver training]:

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 37, line 40, leave out from beginning to "courses" in line 43 and insert—
	"(1) Section 99ZC(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driver training courses: supplementary) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraphs (b) and (c), after "courses" insert "or giving instruction on such courses".
	(3) After paragraph (e) insert "and
	(f) provision authorising the Secretary of State to make available information about persons providing driver training courses or giving instruction on such"

Baroness Crawley: Section 99ZC(1)(b) and (c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide for the approval of persons providing compulsory driver training courses, their training, supervision and so forth. Doubts have recently emerged about whether the existing wording clearly indicates that the provisions cover both training-course providers and individual instructors. Amendment No. 121 seeks to remove any ambiguity. It also enables the Secretary of State to make available information about persons providing driver training courses or those giving instruction on such. It is one of a number of provisions that seek to implement the concept of the informed consumer, which is central to the Government's Road Safety Strategy.
	Section 99ZC(1)(e) provides that regulations under Section 99ZA may include provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of compulsory driver training courses. Sections 99ZA, 99ZB and 99ZC were inserted by the Transport Act 2000, but at the time consequential amendments were not made to Section 173(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which relates to the forgery of documents, or to Section 174(1) of that Act, which relates to false statements. Amendment No. 122 remedies those earlier omissions by amending Sections 173 and 174 accordingly. I ask the Committee to agree to the amendments, and beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I want to ask the Minister a question; the Committee must forgive me if I ought to know the answer. Because of the proposed amendments to the section, do driving instructors have to be trained and registered? If one or the other is not so, we will want to look at the issue further at the next stage of the Bill's consideration. Also, none of it matters if I set off to teach someone how to drive in my car, which I understand that I am entitled to do so long as that driver is supervised. We are concerned about where the changes slot in.

Earl Attlee: I can help my noble friend. To be able to give paid instruction, you have to be registered with the Driving Standards Agency and be an approved driving instructor. The Bill means that training organisations will now have to be registered as well.
	I believe that the Minister's amendment will mean that students will be able to see the pass rate of an individual examiner or an individual school. What happens if the instructor knows that the candidate is not ready for his driving test? I have had that experience several times in HGV driver training, where the candidate insists on going for a test and I know that he should fail and of course he does fail. If we were measuring my candidates' success rate at passing driving tests my pass rate would be adversely affected by someone trying to take the test when they were not ready for it. Perhaps the Minister could help me on those two points.

Viscount Simon: I know that some driving instructors provide written contracts before they start teaching the candidate, whereby they state that the person learning to drive will not be allowed to take the test until the instructor agrees. If they decide to take the test before that takes place, the instructor's car will not be used; another car has to be used.

Lord Mawhinney: I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how informed consumers are supposed to be informed in the Government's view once the Secretary of State has authorised the release of information under paragraph (f).

Baroness Crawley: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for answering the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on my behalf. If there is anything further to add I will write to her, but I believe that the paid instruction aspect is the key. In response to the noble Earl, I believe that there is an obligation on instructors to be in a position to be confident that the people they are instructing are in a position to go ahead with their test, but if someone wishes to go ahead my noble friend Lord Simon is right that they can do so but not with any vehicle in the ownership of the instructor.
	The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, made a good point about informed consumers. Perhaps I could take it away and give him a detailed answer on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 122:
	Page 38, line 1, leave out from "section" to end of line 5 and insert "173(2) of that Act (forgery of documents etc.), for paragraph (ff) substitute—
	"(ff) any document evidencing the successful completion of a driver training course provided in accordance with regulations under section 99ZA of this Act,".
	(3) In section 174(1) of that Act (false statements), after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(ca) of obtaining a document evidencing the successful completion of a driver training course provided in accordance with regulations under section 99ZA of this Act, or"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Driving instruction]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hanningfield: Our opposition to Clause 31 is relevant to our recent discussion. The explanatory note on Clause 32, which gives rise to Schedule 4, states that
	"driving instructors have to be registered if they give paid instruction of any prescribed description. This enables the existing provision regarding paid driving instruction to the driving of motor cars to be extended, by regulation, to other motor vehicle types in addition to motor cars, for example, driving instruction in respect of lorries, buses and motorcycles".
	What is the justification for that extension in regulation? The Government seem, as always, to want to increase regulation and controls and are doing so without justification.
	One of the greatest concerns is the need for people to obtain quick access to training. If people want to engage with a career change and to train to use a heavy goods vehicle, for example, they want to have that instruction straight away, obtain their qualification and get on with their new job. At the moment there are substantial delays in obtaining a test for driving a heavy goods vehicle or bus. As a result, the potential drivers of those vehicles do not own them themselves, but have to hire vehicles for training. That is an additional delay and expense. As a consequence, the total cost falls on the individual who is trying to improve his finances and job opportunities by becoming an HGV driver. We should have more deregulation in this area and encourage more people to go into the training of drivers of heavy lorries or buses. We should think about deregulating the whole system of lorry driver testing so that it can be carried out close to when someone wants to take a test rather than delaying it for weeks or months.
	We remain convinced that this clause is unnecessary. It is bureaucratic and adds to regulation. Will the Minister explain why he feels that it is necessary?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord is challenging a different philosophy with regard to guarantees to the public. Heavy goods vehicle driving is a very important skill. He said that straightforward deregulation will achieve the same objectives, but that case has not been made. It is important that we regulate training and make sure that it is effective for such a significant job. We recognise that heavy goods vehicle driving is an important skill in our community. It certainly affects other road users significantly. We consider that our present structure for the supervision, scrutiny and control of such training is necessary.
	I heard what the noble Lord said about deregulation. We have considered one or two of the amendments that he has tabled on these matters. I have done my best to meet the main arguments that he has put, but we have a difference of philosophy. We do not deny his point about the need for flexibility. That is why these regulations are there. They are to be flexible to take account of developments in industry. We are aware of the rapidity with which change can occur, and we are concerned. The Bill is designed to have an added dimension of flexibility on to those issues.
	We are not convinced of his main proposition: that we would be better off with a deregulated position. I indicated that when we considered the amendments, and on that basis I commend the clause to the Committee.

Lord Hanningfield: I was not suggesting that one should reduce the qualification, the test requirements or the safety and quality of the test. We want to avoid adding extra bureaucracy and regulations, and to speed up the testing process. There is no difference between us and the Government on the quality of the test, on safety precautions and so on. We want to minimise bureaucracy and to provide opportunities for people to get on in new careers, particularly training bus drivers for example, rather than having to wait for a long while as a result of being over-regulated. I hoped that the Minister would agree with that. The more minimal the regulation, the better people can get on, take a quality test, pass it or fail it and move into a new career.

Earl Attlee: It is important to remember that a candidate for an HGV test can waste an awful lot of time using a sub-standard driving instructor. The direction in which the Minister is going would probably improve that situation.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for that point. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is enjoying that remark, and let him enjoy my next remark. I agree with him on the objective of facilitating the paths by which people can get additional training and skill. We would not wish to put barriers on them. But we have an obligation to general road users regarding vehicles that require special skills. It is because of that that we sustain the argument in the clause.

Lord Hanningfield: There is little disagreement between us on this. We got the answer from the Minister that we wanted, so I shall not oppose the clause.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 122A:
	Before Schedule 4, insert the following new schedule—
	"NEW SCHEDULE 2A TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988
	The Schedule inserted after Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is as follows—
	SCHEDULE 2A
	Section 144D
	OFFENCE OF KEEPING VEHICLE WHICH DOES NOT MEET INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: IMMOBILISATION, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES
	:TITLE3:Immobilisation
	1 (1) Regulations may make provision with respect to any case where an authorised person has reason to believe that, on or after such date as may be prescribed, an offence under section 144A of this Act is being committed as regards a vehicle which is stationary on a road or other public place.
	(2) The regulations may provide that the authorised person or a person acting under his direction may—
	(a) fix an immobilisation device to the vehicle while it remains in the place where it is stationary, or
	(b) move it from that place to another place on the same or another road or public place and fix an immobilisation device to it in that other place.
	(3) The regulations may provide that on any occasion when an immobilisation device is fixed to a vehicle in accordance with the regulations the person fixing the device must also fix to the vehicle a notice—
	(a) indicating that the device has been fixed to the vehicle and warning that no attempt should be made to drive it or otherwise put it in motion until it has been released from the device,
	(b) specifying the steps to be taken to secure its release, and
	(c) giving such other information as may be prescribed.
	(4) The regulations may provide that a vehicle to which an immobilisation device has been fixed in accordance with the regulations—
	(a) may only be released from the device by or under the direction of an authorised person, but
	(b) subject to that, must be released from the device if the first and second requirements specified below are met.
	(5) The first requirement is that such charge in respect of the release as may be prescribed is paid in any manner specified in the immobilisation notice.
	(6) The second requirement is that, in accordance with instructions specified in the immobilisation notice, there is produced such evidence as may be prescribed establishing—
	(a) that any person who proposes to drive the vehicle away will not in doing so be guilty of an offence under section 143 of this Act, and
	(b) that the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is not guilty of an offence under section 144A of this Act as regards the vehicle.
	(7) The regulations may provide that they do not apply in relation to a vehicle if—
	(a) a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle, or
	(b) such other conditions as may be prescribed are fulfilled,
	and "disabled person's badge" means a badge issued, or having effect as if issued, under any regulations for the time being in force under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
	(8) The regulations may provide that an immobilisation notice is not to be removed or interfered with except by or on the authority of a person falling within a prescribed description.

Offences connected with immobilisation

2 (1) The regulations may provide that a person contravening provision made under paragraph 1(8) above is guilty of an offence.
	(2) The regulations may provide that a person who, without being authorised to do so in accordance with provision made under paragraph 1 above, removes or attempts to remove an immobilisation device fixed to a vehicle in accordance with the regulations is guilty of an offence.
	(3) The regulations may provide that where they would apply in relation to a vehicle but for provision made under paragraph 1(7)(a) above and the vehicle was not, at the time it was stationary, being used—
	(a) in accordance with regulations under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and
	(b) in circumstances falling within section 117(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (use where a disabled person's concession would be available),
	the person in charge of the vehicle at that time is guilty of an offence.
	(4) The regulations may provide that where—
	(a) a person makes a declaration with a view to securing the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device purported to have been fixed in accordance with the regulations,
	(b) the declaration is that no offence under section 144A of this Act is or was being committed as regards the vehicle, and
	(c) the declaration is to the person's knowledge either false or in any material respect misleading,
	he is guilty of an offence.

Removal and disposal of vehicles

3 (1) The regulations may make provision with respect to any case where—
	(a) an authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under section 144A of this Act is being committed as regards a vehicle which is stationary on a road or other public place, and such conditions as may be prescribed are fulfilled, or
	(b) an authorised person has reason to believe that such an offence was being committed as regards a vehicle at a time when an immobilisation device which is fixed to the vehicle was fixed to it in accordance with the regulations, and such conditions as may be prescribed are fulfilled.
	(2) The regulations may provide that the authorised person, or a person acting under his direction, may remove the vehicle and deliver it into the custody of a person—
	(a) who is identified in accordance with prescribed rules, and
	(b) who agrees to accept delivery in accordance with arrangements agreed between that person and the Secretary of State,
	and the arrangements may include provision as to the payment of a sum to the person into whose custody the vehicle is delivered.
	(3) The regulations may provide that the person into whose custody the vehicle is delivered may dispose of it, and may in particular make provision as to—
	(a) the time at which the vehicle may be disposed of, and
	(b) the manner in which it may be disposed of.
	(4) The regulations may make provision allowing a person to take possession of the vehicle if—
	(a) he claims it before it is disposed of, and
	(b) any prescribed conditions are fulfilled.
	(5) The regulations may provide for a sum of an amount arrived at under prescribed rules to be paid to a person if—
	(a) he claims after the vehicle's disposal to be or to have been its owner,
	(b) the claim is made within a prescribed time of the disposal, and
	(c) any other prescribed conditions are fulfilled.
	(6) The regulations may provide that—
	(a) the Secretary of State, or
	(b) a person into whose custody the vehicle is delivered under the regulations,
	may recover from the vehicle's owner (whether or not a claim is made under provision made under sub-paragraph (4) or (5) above) such charges as may be prescribed in respect of all or any of the following, namely its release, removal, custody and disposal; and "owner" means the person who was the owner when the vehicle was removed.
	(7) The conditions prescribed under sub-paragraph (4) above may include conditions as to—
	(a) satisfying the person with custody that the claimant is the vehicle's owner,
	(b) the payment of prescribed charges in respect of the vehicle's release, removal and custody,
	(c) the production of such evidence as may be prescribed establishing that in driving the vehicle away the claimant will not be guilty of an offence under section 143 of this Act, and
	(d) the production of such evidence as may be prescribed establishing that the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is not guilty of an offence under section 144A of this Act as regards the vehicle.
	(8) The regulations may in particular include provision for purposes corresponding to those of sections 101 and 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (disposal and charges) subject to such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

Offences as to securing possession of vehicles

4 The regulations may provide that where—
	(a) a person makes a declaration with a view to securing possession of a vehicle purported to have been delivered into the custody of a person in accordance with provision made under paragraph 3 above,
	(b) the declaration is that no offence under section 144A of this Act is or was being committed as regards the vehicle, and
	(c) the declaration is to the person's knowledge either false or in any material respect misleading,
	he is guilty of an offence.

Disputes

5 The regulations may make provision about the proceedings to be followed where a dispute occurs as a result of the regulations, and may in particular make provision—
	(a) for an application to be made to a magistrates' court, or
	(b) for a court to order a sum to be paid by the Secretary of State.

Authorised persons

6 As regards anything falling to be done under the regulations (such as receiving payment of a charge or other sum) the regulations may provide that it may be done—
	(a) by an authorised person, or
	(b) by an authorised person or a person acting under his direction.

Application of Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

7 The regulations may make provision for the application of any or all of sections 1, 6, 11 and 12(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to an offence for which provision is made by the regulations.

Interpretation

8 (1) The regulations may make provision as to the meaning for the purposes of the regulations of "owner" as regards a vehicle.
	(2) In particular, the regulations may provide that for the purposes of the regulations the owner of a vehicle is taken to be the person in whose name it is then registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.
	9 (1) The regulations may make provision as to the meaning in the regulations of "authorised person".
	(2) In particular, the regulations may provide that—
	(a) references to an authorised person are to a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the regulations,
	(b) an authorised person may be a local authority or an employee of a local authority or a member of a police force or some other person, and
	(c) different persons may be authorised for the purposes of different provisions of the regulations.
	10 In this Schedule—
	(a) references to an immobilisation device are to a device or appliance which is an immobilisation device for the purposes of section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked), and
	(b) references to an immobilisation notice are to a notice fixed to a vehicle in accordance with the regulations.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Driving instruction]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 122B:
	Page 82, line 35, at end insert—
	"(3) The regulations shall make special provision for the police, fire, ambulance and defence organisations."

Earl Attlee: Schedule 4 inserts new Sections 123 and 124, among others, into the Road Traffic Act 1988. New Section 123 means that driving instruction businesses as well as instructors will have to be registered. I am not convinced about the desirability of further regulations—so I have just shot myself in the foot regarding the previous debate—but I will trust the Minister's judgment. However, new Section 124 allows for regulations to be made to exempt prescribed types of driving instruction from the newly drafted Section 123.
	My amendment seeks to clarify that Section 123 would not apply to police, fire, ambulance and defence organisations. Those organisations have excellent driver/training schools and to require them to register would be a waste of resources. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says that the police have excellent driving schools. All I can say is that their results are pretty dismal. Police cars manage to kill several hundred people every year. There was an article in the Times yesterday about Chief Superintendent Les Owen, who led the anti-speeding campaigns in London. He was given a written warning for allowing his police driver to do 86 mph in a 50-mph zone. The irony is that the poor old driver was given a £250 fine and six penalty points, which was reduced to three on appeal, and the chief superintendent received a written warning. If the police want to have any credibility when driving, they must set an example. This kind of attitude—and I can quote several incidents in Oxfordshire that I have witnessed in the past year or two—is about the worst possible example that they can give to the general public.
	I think that there is an argument for tabling an amendment on Report that states that police drivers must obey all traffic regulations except, possibly, when responding to emergency calls. I do not think that this applies to ambulances or fire brigades because they seem to behave responsibly, but I cannot say. There are obviously some very good police drivers but there are enough bad drivers around to give the force a very bad name. So I am not sure whether the answer is that the new Police Complaints Authority should have a role in ensuring proper driving standards among the police or whether it is a management issue, but this is a serious matter of concern that is not doing the police any good.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is my misfortune to have to navigate between the Scylla of the position of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the Charybdis of my noble friend's one—one in favour of reducing regulation and the other introducing I am not sure what. My noble friend did not specify what improvement he wanted to see in police officers' driving. We are all mindful of those cases which, from time to time, hit the headlines, when mishaps occur during emergency driving. It goes without saying that authorities responding to emergencies need to take special care when driving and need to have high-level skills. That is why there is high-level training for such drivers. I bear in mind my noble friend's anxiety.
	I assure the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, that we do not seek to place an unnecessary burden on those persons providing driver training to members of the emergency services or defence organisations. New Section 124 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the circumstances in which the registration requirements set out in new Section 123 will not apply. That provision will enable exemptions to be made, where appropriate, from a general requirement to be registered, for example, in order to enable persons to acquire experience in giving driving instruction as provided for in subsection (2) of the new Section 124.
	It is clear that the Bill can already adequately meet the specific needs of the police, fire, ambulance and defence organisations. We recognise that they are special categories. My noble friend may say that he is not satisfied with present standards although I believe that he reserves his criticisms for police driving. He has the right to comment on circumstances as he sees them. However, he will recognise that we have specific exemptions for such drivers and their instruction because they are in a special category.
	I am aware of noble Lords' concerns about driving standards in certain sectors. My noble friend gave a sharp illustration. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to regulate any area of driving instruction to meet the needs of different sectors and, by raising driving standards, improve road safety.
	Amendment No. 122B is unnecessary. It places an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide exemptions from registration even when they are not required or justified on the ground of road safety. I assure the noble Earl and the Committee that we have a Bill which provides such exemptions. I hope that I have allayed his anxieties. Also, although my noble friend Lord Berkeley can continue to raise the points that he made, we are catering for several generic categories and he has illustrated his point with only one category. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made his contribution. My amendment referred to schools rather than skills. There is not much that a school can do if a police officer subsequently behaves appallingly. However, he raises an important point. We have debated a suitable amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill. I am grateful for the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ampthill: Having called Amendment No. 128, I apologise for my slip and now call Amendment No. 123.

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 91, line 44, after "training" insert "or giving instruction as part of training"

Baroness Crawley: In moving Amendment No. 123, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 126. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of subsection (5) of new Section 133ZA, on training, set out in Schedule 4, provide for the approval of persons providing training, their supervision and so forth, and the making available of information about them. Doubts have recently emerged about whether the existing wording clearly indicates that the provisions cover both training course providers and individual instructors. Amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 125 provide clarity in that they amend paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of subsection (5) of new Section 133ZA to make it clear that the provisions apply to those giving instruction as part of training as well as training providers.
	Paragraph (e) of subsection (5) of new Section 133ZA provides that regulations made under that section may include provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of training. There is a consequential need to include that evidence within the ambit of Sections 173(2) and 174(1). Amendment No. 126 ensures that the scope of Sections 173(2) and 174(1) are extended accordingly. In addition, Amendment No. 126 also inserts under Section 173(2) new paragraphs (ga) and (gb) concerning certificates issued under Section 133A to disabled drivers who successfully complete an emergency control assessment and the certificates or other items issued to a person by virtue of regulations made under Section 135(1)(a) as evidence of his registration in respect of a description of driving instruction. I ask Members of the Committee to agree to these amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I have no objections to the amendments that have been moved. But I am unable to find anywhere else to intervene and ask the Minister to explain Clause 32(3)(e). With the leave of the Committee, I shall do that now. Clause 32 is entitled, Tests: approved assistants. Subsection (3) states:
	"The regulations may make provision in relation to the approval of test assistants and may, in particular, include provision".
	Paragraph (e) will include a provision,
	"for an appeal to lie to the Transport Tribunal against a refusal of an application".
	There may be a very hidden meaning here, but the phrasing seems to be extremely infelicitous if people are to be able to appeal to tell lies to the tribunal. That is how it reads. If that is not correct, at some stage we may want to amend the text. It seems a very strange way of putting things into legislation.

Baroness Crawley: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on her forensic look at this matter. On the face of it, it sounds a little strange. I shall have a good look at this and return to the noble Baroness if further clarification is needed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 126:
	Page 92, line 2, at end insert "or giving instruction as part of training"
	Page 92, line 8, at end insert "or giving instruction as part of training"
	Page 96, line 22, at end insert—
	"26A In section 173(2) (forgery of documents etc.), for paragraph (g) substitute—
	"(g) any document evidencing the successful completion of training provided in accordance with regulations under section 133ZA of this Act,
	(ga) any certificate under section 133A of this Act,
	(gb) any certificate or other item prescribed under section 135(1)(a) of this Act,".
	26B In section 174(1) (false statements), after paragraph (d) insert—
	"(da) of obtaining a document evidencing the successful completion of training provided in accordance with regulations under section 133ZA of this Act, or"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 127:
	After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
	"GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO TRAFFIC SIGNS
	In section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (general provisions as to traffic signs) after subsection (6) insert—
	"(7) Regulations made under subsection (1)(a) above shall require all distances, dimensions and speeds marked on traffic signs to use the metric system exclusively, in the case of—
	(a) special roads (motorways) within 18 months of this Act coming into force,
	(b) strategic and trunk roads within two years, and
	(c) all other roads within five years.""

Earl Attlee: I know perfectly well that Members on all sides of the Committee will delight in shooting me down in flames on this amendment. It seeks to make it necessary for all traffic signs to be in metric in respect of speeds, distances and dimensions. I believe that one day a Minister will promote legislation that achieves just what I am now proposing. The amendment will make it easier to comply with speed limits because the speedo display will be much clearer with only one set of graduations on the dial. The Committee will not be aware that around 400,000 lorry drivers already have to contend with a tachograph whose primary speed display is in kilometres per hour and not in miles per hour. In the early 1980s, when I worked at Smiths Industries, we accidentally produced 3,000 speedos with an imperial counter stack mechanism, although the speedo dial was in kilometres per hour. They were fitted in cars, and the recall costs were horrendous.
	Although we generally understand kilometres, as we frequently drive on the Continent, when our continental partners drive in the UK they have absolutely no idea at all how far 37 miles is. The grid squares on an Ordnance Survey map are one kilometre square, so that would work very nicely with a speedo in metric. Also, sooner or later—this will interest the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—there will be a terrible accident when a continental lorry hits a railway bridge just at the wrong moment and causes a derailment. We need one set of measurements on our roads to eliminate an obvious source of confusion and prevent a possible tragedy. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: This is an excellent amendment. Such a measure should have come in years ago. It is a little like still buying a pound of butter. Why do we not go totally metric? All governments appear to have been frightened of that. We even have a maximum speed for lorries which is 56 mph. I know that that is 80 kph—I do not know how many noble Lords know that—and that presumably was the figure that came from the Commission at some stage. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned the difficulties for continental drivers, but at the moment, as they appear not to pay any funds at all for any offences they commit, it probably does not matter, except that they will kill more people as a result, and that does matter.
	The noble Earl is right about railway bridges. We should make this change now and stop pussy-footing around with two different speeds, two different heights and two different widths. It will simplify things. The average person in the street is quite capable of understanding what a metre, a centimetre or a millimetre is, or even a kilometre. It is not that difficult. I strongly support the amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I notice from the national cycle route which goes past my house—National Cycle Route 76—that the National Cycle Network is already using kilometres, although I think that is to encourage the cyclists, who will have done more kilometres than they would have done miles.

Lord Snape: I apologise for striking a discordant note in your Lordships' House. Some of us are quite proud of the fact that the House of Lords is the last bastion of reactionary thinking. I am beginning to sound like a reactionary thinker, but here we are, apparently wishing to consign many years of our own tradition to—I would not call it modernity—this view that we are penalising those from the Continent when they drive in the United Kingdom. Like the noble Earl, I drive quite a lot on the Continent. I do not find any great difficulty in adjusting to kilometres, if that is what people on the Continent prefer. Equally, I do not see any great difficulty for somebody coming to this country in adjusting to the system that we have had for very many years.
	I did some surveys on bridge-bashing some years ago when I was in the other place. Comparatively few continental lorries hit bridges. Most that do are driven by home-grown lorry drivers who are apparently incapable of reading signs, whether they are in feet, inches, metres or anything else. If we want to prevent people bridge-bashing, a few exemplary punishments should be administered. I incline to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that, sooner or later, a fatal accident will be caused, but I doubt whether it will have anything to do with the fact that the height of the bridge is measured in feet and inches rather than in metres. As a comparatively new Member of your Lordships' House, I hesitate to suggest that we would rather make fools of ourselves if we blithely accept this amendment, but I am tempted to do so.

Lord Hanningfield: As most Members of this House will know, this is not official Conservative policy. Therefore, we on the Front Bench do not support my noble friend's amendment.

Viscount Simon: Perhaps I may be even more reactionary than my noble friend. If continental drivers have problems adjusting to imperial measures, why do they not use imperial measurements over there? I really do not know. My final thought is a minor correction: 80 kilometres per hour is 50 miles per hour.

Lord Davies of Oldham: This issue has been debated for the past 30 years. I thought for a moment that we were in danger of debating it for the next 30 years, but I am grateful for the succinct comments that everybody has made in this interesting debate.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, spoke about the enormous difficulty in this country of adjusting to different road-length measurements. That is as nothing, I should have thought, to the difficulty faced by the continental driver who finds that we drive on the other side of the road. Drivers have to have the skills to cope with that and do so well. Therefore, I think the issue of calculation of distances can be greatly exaggerated. Suffice it to say that if we went metric with our road signs we would need substantial preparation. The idea that we might slip it in on a wet October afternoon in a modest, unostentatious little Bill such as this, having made no attempt to prepare the nation for the shock of waking up to this change is obviously risible. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, never fails to trigger wide-ranging debates. On this occasion, he has not perhaps derived quite the degree of support that he might have expected.
	Bridge heights are often expressed in metric measurements on signs because we are mindful of the fact that lorries colliding with bridges is a potential hazard, although it seems that many home-grown buses and lorries collide with bridges, but very few double-decker buses come from overseas.
	I hear what the noble Earl says. The innovation of the national cycle group never ceases to amaze me. I wholly applaud everything it does, and if it shortens the pain for cyclists by convincing them they are doing rather more than they have done, that is a plus. However, a newly-created national route is different from translating policy on to all our roads. Noble Lords will recognise that we would want just one obvious pattern.
	I would not want to guess at official Conservative Party policy—although I am delighted that this amendment is not their policy—but I am sure they will be as persuaded as I am that there are substantial costs involved in changing the mileage on every road sign in Britain to metric. It would be a significant measure that one would not take on light-heartedly. We would need preparation on a huge scale. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on having aired this important issue again, but this is not the place to effect such a radical change. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I was not the least bit surprised by the Minister's confidence when he rose to the Dispatch Box to respond to my amendment. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
	The noble Lord, Lord Snape, was talked about lorry drivers. I say to noble Lords, what if you were a lorry driver and you had to work out whether fourteen feet four inches was higher or lower than 4.4 metres? It seems peculiar that we happily consider opting for a single currency but are not prepared to use the metric system on our roads. However, I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 128:
	After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
	"YOUNG DRIVERS' SCHEME: PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES
	Schedule (Young drivers' scheme: passenger carrying vehicles) shall have effect."

Lord Bradshaw: Training of people for the road passenger industry, aviation and the railways, but not goods vehicles, is in the hands of the Sector Skills Council for Passenger Transport. This has been welcomed by the Minister's right honourable friend in another place, David Miliband, who, when it was launched, said that he "very very very" much approved of the professionalisation of training in the whole of the passenger industry. The council has been set up for this purpose.
	There is a huge shortage of bus drivers. Drivers are coming here from eastern Europe and elsewhere to take up jobs, but that supply cannot be guaranteed. We ought to be training our own young people to be the next generation of bus drivers. A lot of people in the industry are going to retire in the near future.
	One problem is entry into bus-driving. The purpose of this amendment is to give the Government the opportunity to bring forward on Report amendments to the regulations regarding what vehicles young people can drive. There seems to be a case for allowing younger people than at present to drive smaller vehicles so that they might begin to gain expertise, because much of the work in the road passenger industry needs you actually to be on a bus. We do not have bus conductors any more. In fact, the last bus conductors in London are to be phased out within the next few weeks.
	So we have a problem in getting people who are coming out of education into the world of work. We cannot put those skills in place unless steps are taken to allow them to drive smaller, less heavy vehicles, obviously after having passed the tests to ensure that those skills have been imparted. That is why we are proposing the amendment. I will not be very prescriptive at this stage, in the hope that the Minister will say that the Government will look at the amendment with a view to bringing their own amendment back on Report. If they do not do so, I will—and I will then run the risk of the Minister saying that what I have drafted is not as good as the amendment he might have drafted. I beg to move.

Lord Snape: I rise on this occasion to support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. As your Lordships who served in the Armed Forces will be aware, young members of the Armed Forces under the age of 21 have for very many years been able to drive heavy goods vehicles, including buses, for obvious operational reasons. I do not think that that has proved particularly unsuccessful. Indeed, I do not think that the accident rate among those younger drivers is any greater than it is for those over the official age for a PCV—as it is known these days—of 21.
	When I got to my feet I should have declared an interest as an employee of the National Express Group, which has employed lots of bus drivers. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, there is a shortage of bus drivers. Noble Lords will not have heard it, but one of my colleagues on this side of the Committee muttered something about wages in the bus industry. Perhaps he and other noble Lords feel that wage levels have helped to cause the shortage, but it is not entirely that. The National Express Group is renowned for paying some of the highest wages in the bus industry but there is still a shortage, particularly in and around our major conurbations. It is not a particularly attractive job. The days when you could spend 10 minutes at the terminus at either end of the journey are long gone. Modern-day traffic conditions make it an extremely onerous job. I do not envy for a moment those who do it every day of their lives.
	Importing—if that is the right term—drivers from eastern Europe has been one method of combating that shortage and this proposal may well be another. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I feel that we should return to the subject on Report if we cannot get a satisfactory answer at this stage.

Lord Berkeley: I have put my name down to support the amendment. Both noble Lords who have spoken have talked about the shortage of drivers. One has only to look at the age profile on the buses one passes or travels on to see that there will be an even bigger problem in the future. The lorry driver shortage is to some extent being mitigated by eastern European drivers, who of course sleep in their cabs. I do not imagine that that is intended for the bus industry but it certainly reduces the costs. The wage rates on lorries are very low compared with here, so they may well like to become bus drivers. Whether they will be required to speak English is a good question. Train drivers in Germany have to speak German. I am not sure whether there is a requirement for bus drivers in this country to speak English but it would clearly be helpful.
	I think that this is a very good scheme and it deserves every support if we are to have a good-quality bus service with helpful service-directed drivers who have consideration not only for other road users but for their passengers in how they accelerate, decelerate and do other things. I fully support the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I too support the amendment. It is important to remember that by 21 most school leavers will have already established their career. So they will simply not go into bus driving unless they can start early.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to the debate, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his introduction and thinly veiled threat that unless I produce a decent, helpful response today, we shall hear more on Report. He may not consider my response sufficient to obviate that need but I shall do my best.
	First, I shall be negative about his amendments because although I have heard from all parts of the Committee some approval of the scheme—even from the Benches behind me—all noble Lords have expressed themselves in fairly general terms. The devil lies in some of the detail. I hear what the noble Lord said about improving recruitment to bus driving—we know of the difficulties with recruitment, and the scheme has its attractions.
	I am minded to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on emphasising the fact that if we are concerned about developing the skills of the younger generation, this is one that we should attend to. But there are problems with the amendment. I do not want to be too brutal in dismantling it, but will argue against it on three grounds. Ending on a rising note of optimism—not to say a constructive stance—I hope to win the support of the Committee.
	The trouble with the amendment is that it looks as though we are saying to the nation that there is a driving age of 17 for car drivers, but you may find yourselves on a bus with a 16 year-old driver. That is an interesting concept that might be difficult to sustain.
	There is no end point to the scheme. It says that 16 to 21 year-olds can join, but can someone keep struggling on? Can someone be a member of a young person's scheme when he is 42 because he has failed over the previous 20 years to satisfy the examiner? The amendment is defective on such matters, so I cannot accept it.
	I should emphasise, too, that it is contrary to European legislation. A European directive provides that passenger-carrying vehicles, such as buses, cannot be driven by anyone under 18, so there would be a European problem to overcome if we accepted the amendment.
	I hear what my noble friend Lord Snape said about all sorts of young people in the Armed Forces careering around in wagons. First, the Armed Forces are careful enough to ensure that vehicles are driven in fairly restricted circumstances. Secondly, 16 year-olds are not engaged in the Armed Forces, so there is no direct parallel with the scheme.
	Let me get on to the positive side of the amendment. I am sure that noble Lords have formed the impression that I have lost all imagination or commitment to the development of our nation's skills. The European Parliament and Council are providing for the introduction of a certificate of professional competence for bus and lorry drivers, and its renewal every five years. That will link with European rules on minimum driving ages, and the implementation of the directive will provide an excellent opportunity to produce a coherent stakeholder-supported scheme for young drivers, which is what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do.
	We cannot do that with this amendment, but we shall shortly have the European directive, which will oblige us to respond positively to the concept of enhancing and developing the skills of younger drivers. I hope that the noble Lord will think that that is a sufficiently sound answer that merits not renewing the issue on Report, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: I will withdraw the amendment but I do not think that the answer was totally satisfactory. First, I want some assurances about the timescale of the directive. When will it be passed and implemented? There is a skills sector now, which can train people to the sort of standards produced in the Army—or probably better than that. We are talking about providing a ladder of opportunity into employment. We also have a very bad shortage of bus drivers. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance regarding the timescale of the European directive; otherwise, I shall have to bring forward a more solid measure at Report.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I cannot talk in terms of immediate months but I assure the noble Lord that we shall implement the directive by secondary legislation. An SI will be needed to implement it. Primary legislation will not be required. There will be no delay built into its implementation. We shall be able to do it readily. Once we have finished our consultations and have the scheme in place, we shall be able to go ahead reasonably promptly and seek the will of Parliament for implementation.

Lord Berkeley: I do not like to throw a spanner in the works but the open access railway directives 2001/1213 and 1214, have still not been turned into regulations four years later. I know that the Government want to do that, and they are about to go to court if they do not do that by the end of the year, but these things can take time.

Lord Bradshaw: Further to that, the legislation for the introduction of cameras in bus lanes has taken at least five years to translate into regulations. It is reported in the press this week that the department has not yet type approved the cameras. Although the legislation is coming in on 1 November, no local authority will be able to implement it because the cameras have not been type approved. Therefore, assurances about secondary legislation do not cut too much ice with me. But, having said that, I shall withdraw the amendment and think about it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 129:
	After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
	"LICENSING OF DRIVERS OF LARGE GOODS VEHICLES: MEDICAL EXAMINATION
	After section 110 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
	"110A LICENSING: NO FEES PAYABLE FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY GP
	(1) The costs of any medical examination required for the issue or renewal of a licence to drive a large goods vehicle shall not fall to be met by the applicant for, or holder of, the licence, provided that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
	(2) The condition referred to in subsection (1) is that the examination shall be carried out by a general medical practitioner.""

Earl Attlee: We are short on time and we are short on lorry drivers. It is very expensive to become a lorry driver as most have to pay for their own driver training—a point covered by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. But before they can even go for an assessment, they need a medical for which they have to pay. In addition, older HGV drivers need regular medicals after a certain age. I do not dispute the need for a medical but it is a major deterrent to starting the trade of driving a lorry or to maintaining a licence that is not being used much—perhaps a holder has taken on other work or he has been promoted in the organisation but it is quite handy if he maintains a licence so that he can drive occasionally, perhaps to enable him to see what it is like for his employees.
	But when a GP charges a working man, whose state of health he knows perfectly well, £100, the words "money" and "old rope" come to mind. I am lucky as Her Majesty pays for my medical. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the precise way in which he tabled the amendment. We are not about the business of increasing costs for goods vehicle drivers. However, they are obliged to provide medical evidence at application for, and renewal of, their licence. That takes the form of a medical report completed by a qualified medical practitioner following examination. The requirement is based on the second European Community directive on driving licences, which applies to driving licensing in the United Kingdom.
	There is currently no provision in legislation for the Department for Transport to meet the costs of that report. The general road user or the general taxpayer would be obliged to meet those costs if they were not paid by the applicant. However, we meet the cost of any further medical inquiries or examinations that are necessary where information in the report, or from another source, suggests that the individual has a medical condition which may affect their fitness to drive. So we do meet the additional costs, but not the initial ones. It would be an unfair charge upon the public purse for the initial fees to be paid. Again, this is against a background where the fee charged for completing the report would not be regulated by the DVLA. It would be the decision of the medical practitioner concerned, so it would have a distinctive, open-ended quality to it.
	We have made some attempt to reduce burdens on the road-haulage industry. In March 2004, the fee charged by the DVLA for a vocational licence was abolished. This cost is now met through fees for other driver and vehicle licence transactions, but adopting a similar approach to the costs of the medical report required of lorry drivers would be a substantial burden indeed. Someone would have to meet those costs, with their element of open-endedness which I mentioned. While I hear what the noble Earl says, and we are concerned to encourage the development of skills among heavy goods vehicle drivers, I hope he will recognise that this is not a proper cost upon the public purse and therefore be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I can understand where the Minister is coming from, but I hope he will note my concern, which is with the amount. Most GPs know their patients well. They will know whether they have a heart condition or a gammy chest, and a fee of more than £100 for a medical examination seems excessive. Would the Minister or his officials consider talking to the BMA, to see whether it really needs to be quite so expensive? In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 130:
	Before Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
	"CESSATION OF PART 2 OF VEHICLES (CRIME) ACT 2001
	Part 2 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 (c. 3) (regulation of registration plate suppliers) shall cease to have effect."

Earl Attlee: My amendment is very simple. Part 2 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, which provides for the registration of number plate suppliers, shall cease to have effect. The legislation inconveniences no one except law-abiding motorists, and it has undesirable side effects.
	Some time ago, shortly after implementation of the Vehicles (Crime) Act, I asked my friendly motor factor what documents I would need to obtain a number plate from him for my car's trailer. The answer was "Don't worry about that. We know who you are". The Committee will understand exactly what the motor factor meant, but that is not the point. On another occasion, when I went to Halfords—a major retailer of car accessories—one person did the paperwork and another produced the number plate. They both completed their tasks at the same time. What does that say about productivity? Does the Committee honestly believe that criminals will find obtaining a number plate an insurmountable obstacle to making several thousand pounds of profit from selling a stolen vehicle?
	To be slightly more charitable about this issue, I was thinking that there might be one advantage. Quite often, youngsters have been buying false number plates from a motor factor, attaching it to their car, going to a petrol station and filling up, then driving away without paying. It could of course be thought that the new legislation would combat that. It is much more difficult for them to obtain number plates, because they are not fully fledged criminals. The problem is that they are now stealing the number plates from someone else's car. So we used to have a problem of kids buying a number plate from a motor factor to stick on the front of their car, but they are now seriously inconveniencing someone. If that someone is a long way from home—say he lives in Liverpool and his number plate is stolen in London while the log book for his vehicle is at home in Liverpool—he cannot even get a replacement number plate, because of the legislation that caused him the problem in the first place. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Amendment No. 130A, which is grouped with my noble friend's amendment, seems to be coming from a different angle; we want to tighten it up. In speaking to the proposed new clause entitled "Designated registration plate manufacturers", I first declare an interest as I served as chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, an associated parliamentary group dedicated to the reduction of vehicle-related crime and disorder.
	The central DVLA operation in Swansea opened 40 years ago in 1965 and was enabled by the growing power and availability of mainframe computers. Some 30 years ago, the UK vehicle registration plate makers market consisted of only a handful of manufacturers and distributors, but now new computer technology has resulted in a proliferation of supply sources who can access a variety of individual components required to assemble and produce a registration plate. The DVLA records indicate that 32,000 suppliers and 38,000 outlets are registered as a result of the Vehicles (Crimes) Act 2001.
	It was only 30 years ago that technology was developing to enable the automatic reading of vehicle number plates which, 15 years ago, provided a platform enabling the City of London to establish the ring of steel to counter the threat of terrorist bombs being driven into the City. The technology of camera quality has developed significantly so that now cameras can read accurately all lanes of fast-moving motorway traffic and, equally importantly, the back-office facility has been developed so that 32 million data inputs from automotive number plate readings can be processed every day.
	Three elements of the proposed amendment aim to maximise the advantages of new technology that were not fully appreciated in the past decade and were neither incorporated in the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 nor the small but welcome amendments currently in the Bill. The extremely fragmented methods of supply and distribution of vehicle registration plates is completely in conflict with our growing capacity to track vehicle movement, which has the power to continue to reduce criminality across an extremely wide spectrum from congestion charge evasion to driving while disqualified, to stolen vehicles, burglary, drug dealing, and terrorism. The proposed amendments are all welcomed by ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, as it addresses issues of growing significance that are detracting from its ability to continue to reduce crime and disorder.
	For example, Luton police reported 316 known cases of stolen vehicle registration plates in the past year. Hertfordshire police reported an average of 83 cases of stolen vehicle registration plates per month over the past three months versus an average of 63 cases over the previous 12 months, which is an increase of 30 per cent. In addition, Hertfordshire police report that incidents of stolen vehicle registration plates now constitute 20 per cent of all instances of theft from motor vehicles versus being only 10 per cent in the previous months.
	The amendment seeks to enable a step change in our capacity to reduce all elements of criminality associated with vehicles. The market for manufacturing, assembly and supply of vehicle registration plates must be reframed as a service business for a limited number of approved manufacturers receive, accredit and despatch orders in required time frames for both the vehicle industry and consumers. That outcome will help enhance the ability of cameras to read vehicle registration plates that are produced to precise standards. Currently, the maximum standard for the ANPR system is 95 per cent readability. Encouragingly, 98 per cent is capable of being achieved. Many problematic motorists fall in that remaining 2 per cent.
	Finally, the ultimate crime reduction approach is to eliminate the value of any crime by ensuring that criminals do not receive any benefit whatever. The DVLA, working in partnership with the police, needs to develop a system whereby any stolen vehicle registration plate is made void, and therefore has no value to the thief. The database comprising all stolen vehicle registration plates would be fed in to the ANPR database, and stops of vehicles carrying such plates would be given a high priority of apprehension.

Lord Bradshaw: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, has said. I am aware that all number plate suppliers have had to be registered with the DVLA since January 2003. I do not know what branch of government that comes under, but I would like to know if any enforcement action is taken and, if so, by whom.
	We are anxious that number plates are manufactured in accordance with the regulations, and that they are not in types of script which their owners think draw attention to themselves, or are difficult for the police to read. Most importantly, the DVLA should maintain an up-to-date register of number plate thefts and other infringements that pertain to a certain car. They should get us out of a position which I witnessed about three weeks ago when I was with the police. We followed a vehicle quite a long way and stopped it. The lady in it, a very respectable schoolteacher, was very shocked. She had bought the car from somebody else six months previously, but the records had not been amended. The previous owner had been a criminal and had used the car for criminal purposes—of course, he had not had insurance and all sorts of other things. That is why the automatic number plate recognition machine worked.
	We have advances in technology and a sort of creeping, groaning bureaucracy to back them up, which does not enable the technology to be up to date and as useful as it could be. The theft of number plates is a serious business and is increasing. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says can be done about it.

Lord Hanningfield: I also support my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux. My name has been added to this amendment.

Viscount Simon: One thing that could be expanded upon at some stage is that there are sometimes places at markets where you can have a number plate made up without any identification whatsoever. On the stand, there is sometimes a small sign saying "For home use only". These people should be completely banned from using their facilities.

Earl Attlee: The Committee will be surprised to hear that I support my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux if, and only if, the number plate were much more sophisticated. If it had an electronic chip, some sort of tag, then there would be much to commend the noble Lord's amendment.
	There is a difficulty with the last part of his amendment, which suggests that the number of a stolen number plate should be voided. Of course, people pay an awful lot of money for a cherished number plate. I suspect that if they paid £20,000 for the number plate "WE1", for instance, and then that plate was stolen and they lost its identity, that would be a bit of a problem.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
	I recognise that, in his amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, shares my concerns over the use of vehicles that facilitate crime. Not all drivers, of course, are criminals, but pretty much all criminals are drivers. That is why we need to get some control over the issue. The disguising of the true identity of vehicles though the display of false plates is a matter of great concern, which will jeopardise the future use of camera technology if not controlled. It also allows people to evade fines and charges for more modest traffic offences.
	The significant contribution made by the regulation of number-plate suppliers to achieving the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team's target of a 30 per cent reduction in vehicle crime has been acknowledged by both the Home Office and the police. It is not a system that I would want to see stopped or interfered with; it is making progress. The evidence from police is that organised criminals find getting number plates more difficult under the scheme in place than was the case.
	I understand the anxieties expressed. The DVLA is working with the number-plate industry to develop tamperproof plates and increase the security of plates by including an identification chip. We are making progress in the area, and are of one mind in all parts of the Committee on the importance of dealing with this issue in reducing crime. I understand very well the noble Earl's introduction of the amendment to highlight an important issue. I am grateful for that, but we have a scheme in place that is increasingly proving its worth and has been commended by the police. On that basis, I would be loath to accept an amendment that changed the basis on which we now work.
	I shall turn to the amendment so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. With his vast knowledge of the issue, he knows that it is already the case that only suppliers registered on the DVLA register may produce number plates. Few, if any, manufacturers of number plates are not also suppliers, so the database is not huge or extensive. We have controls in place; namely, prosecution and suspension from the register for transgressions. I reassure the Committee that the Bill increases capacity for surveillance. At present, the police have to take the initiative to examine the premises on which they think that false number plates are being produced illegally. Under the Bill, the DVLA will be able to send in inspectors to look at registered premises and bring prosecutions. The Bill tightens up procedures and puts additional controls in place. I hope that the Committee will welcome that and recognise that it fits exactly with all the arguments on the need to establish significant controls in the area, which is important.
	The problem is that most of the provision at present extends only to England and Wales. That is the point about Clause 35, which extends the legislation to provide the necessary protection for Scotland and Northern Ireland. I agree of course with the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, that it would be desirable to have fewer suppliers from the point of view of controlling supplies, and will look at the concept in his amendment to see what we can do about it. We are mindful of the fact that maintaining a register is one thing, but controlling entry to an activity is a little different, so we have to proceed with some care.
	Number plates are already required to comply with the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001. The regulations prescribe the typeface, size, colouring and the British standard to which number plates must conform. I am sure that, if I do not mention this en passant, I shall get a contribution from a noble Lord who has seen some weird and wonderful plate that looks more like someone's favourite girlfriend's name than a number plate. Having such a plate is dicing with the law. I can only state that of course under our increasing requirements of surveillance, which will necessitate standardisation of plates, people who think that in almost a light-hearted manner they can dispense with the normal formula will find themselves in considerable difficulty. Specifications are already laid down. The DVLA also holds a register of number-plate suppliers, which records all of those entitled to sell number plates, so to have another register, which is recommended in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, would add a substantial administrative burden and I am not sure where the additional gain would be.
	I reassure the Committee that we are fully cognisant of the problem at which the two groups of amendments are directed. It is increasingly important and significant, but in short a registration plate register would not offer significant benefits over and above our present scheme. The costs in setting up and administering such a scheme would be considerable. We maintain that we have the framework within the Bill to cover the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland adequately against this important feature with regard to crime.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: We debated a similar amendment in May 2001 on the Vehicles (Crime) Act. I was assured then that number plates would all be the same, the typeface would be the same; yet, for example, D11CSO is jammed up to read "disco". We are still no further forward on having a uniform registration plate system. I do not mean cherished number plates: I am talking about ordinary number plates where the letters are pushed in together like the example I have just given.

Lord Bradshaw: I ask the Minister to reply to the point about the DVLA keeping an up-to-date register, because the absence of an up-to-date register of number plates—which is its main function—should be at least underlined to it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are aware of the strength of arguments being put. I will in due course give further reassurances to the noble Lord. I emphasise that we are active in this area. We are monitoring our progress. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, is right to attest that not all number plates look to be of a standardised form. Standardised form has some variants but we know that standardisation is not at the level that we would want or need it to be when registration plates are used for more information gathering about the use of the motor car than at present. I cannot speak too much about uniformity, but the police consider the number of illegible plates to be decreasing, so we are making progress in that area.

Lord Berkeley: Will my noble friend write to Members who have contributed to the debate to say how many successful prosecutions there have been and by whom for people who have had number plates that are illegible, in stupid writing or something like that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My department is not responsible for keeping a register of prosecutions, so that may be a difficult task. However, I will bear in mind my noble friend's point and ensure that, as the Bill proceeds, I can give even greater reassurance than I have today that we are making progress in that respect.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The Minister mentioned that the Bill extends the standardisation regulations to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. Will that lead to the end of people in Scotland enjoying having on the left-hand side of their number plates European Union markings and the letters "SCO", identifying that the car comes from Scotland, which is in some cases a security measure?

Lord Davies of Oldham: No, it does not proscribe that. One of the additional components of an approved number plate can be the use of the European symbol, which also indicates the area of Europe from which the vehicle comes.

Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made an important point. It is very important that the Minister tells us how many prosecutions there have been under this new legislation. It is a bit surprising that when we introduce some new legislation there is no system to record the number of prosecutions.
	I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords on this amendment. The Minister mentioned organised crime. If those involved in organised crime can illegally import a pretty girl from Moldova for the purposes of sex trafficking, I doubt that they will experience much problem obtaining illegal number plates. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 130A:
	After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
	"DESIGNATED REGISTRATION PLATE MANUFACTURERS
	(1) Only manufacturers designated by the Secretary of State may produce registration plates.
	(2) The number plates described in subsection (1) shall be manufactured in accordance with regulations published from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(3) The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency shall maintain an up to date register of registration plates, taking immediate account of those notified as having been stolen."

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I thank the Minister for what he said. I shall study it and take advice.

[Amendment No. 130A not moved.]
	Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 131:
	After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
	"CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO LICENCES
	In section 21 of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c. 23), after subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) On issuing an operator's licence, or on varying such a licence under section 17, a traffic commissioner may attach to the licence such conditions as he thinks fit to ensure that vehicles authorised to be used under it are properly inspected, including—
	(a) requiring the use of serial numbered inspection reports supplied by the Secretary of State or his agent;
	(b) requiring copies of each inspection to be sent to the Secretary of State or his agent.""

Earl Attlee: When the traffic commissioner is dealing with a goods vehicle operator who appears to be experiencing difficulties in meeting the required standard of maintenance, he can impose conditions. They frequently involve maintenance arrangements and, in particular, inspections. When the Vehicle Operator Services Agency announces a site inspection, it is often the case that the operator has no inspection records because he is poor at paperwork. It does not necessarily mean that he has not been maintaining his fleet properly, but the Committee will recognise that the maintenance records are extremely important.
	If he does not have proper records of inspections, the operator's solution would be to find an experienced mate who knows how to create inspection records that will tie in with the bills for spare parts. It is not too difficult for an expert in vehicle maintenance to do that, and it is hard to detect except, perhaps, by means of an unannounced visit. However, serial-numbered inspection reports would make it much harder, by orders of magnitude, to falsify the inspection record, even if only three vehicles were involved. When trying to falsifying the records, it is far too easy to make errors that would be detectable in an audit, and the operator would not be able to destroy a serial numbered inspection report because there would be gaps in his records. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I assure him that the Government share his concern that goods vehicles should be properly inspected and maintained. This is one of the prime objectives of the goods vehicles licensing system. As the noble Earl will know, the traffic commissioners set requirements that applicants must meet. Before issuing a licence, traffic commissioners are required to satisfy themselves that there are satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition. Applicants are required to provide an example of the form or checklist that will be used for safety inspections or to state how often such inspections will be carried out. Applicants must also provide details of their maintenance facilities and staff or, if a contractor is used, the contractual arrangements for maintenance and inspection. Applicants are also required to sign an undertaking that vehicles will be kept fit and serviceable; that record of maintenance and safety inspections will be kept for 15 months; and that they will be made available to the traffic commissioner on request. This undertaking is binding and an ongoing obligation. Failure, as the noble Earl will know, to comply with it may lead to revocation of the licence.
	Guidance on the maintenance standards which operators are expected to meet is contained in Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness published by the Department for Transport. These include a safety inspection of each vehicle at regular intervals—normally not more than six weeks. A suggested form for recording these inspections is also included in that guide.
	Examiners from the department's Vehicle and Operator Service Agency (VOSA) have powers to check maintenance arrangements and records, and to examine vehicles at the operator's premises or the roadside. Any shortcomings will be brought to the attention of the relevant traffic commissioner. VOSA examiners aim to visit all newly licensed operators within a few months of their starting operations to ensure that they are aware of and meeting their obligations. VOSA examiners also focus their attention on operators where shortcomings have been found previously or where other intelligence suggests that requirements are not being met.
	I hope that this explanation will reassure the noble Earl that effective arrangements are already in force to ensure that goods vehicles are properly maintained and would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I listened carefully to the Minister's response. I am sorry to say that she did not produce a single argument why serial numbered inspection reports should not be required. Of course it is not something that you would want to put into regulations and you certainly would not want it in primary legislation, but, surely, it is something that the traffic commissioners should be regularly asking for when they identify a failing operator. I have to say that I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's response and I shall certainly be returning to this matter at a later stage in the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 38 [Disclosure to foreign authorities of licensing and registration information]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hanningfield: Clause 38 provides statutory authority to the DVLA in Great Britain and Driver and the Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) to disclose certain data to foreign counterparts. I have a number of concerns about the clause and wish to probe the Minister on the circumstances and extent to which these powers will be used.
	According to the Explanatory Notes the provision will allow the government to ratify the European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System (EUCARIS) treaty. If so, why is the power that is accorded to the DVLA, the DVLNI and the department so wide? If the purpose is simply to allow ratification of the EUCARIS treaty, then why is the power not restricted to the relevant signatories—a treaty that other prominent European countries, such as France, Italy and Spain, have conspicuously not signed? Instead the clause permits that any information, subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsections (1) and (2) can be made,
	"available to the authorities of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
	Why should the power be so extensive? I wish to probe the Minister as to the exact nature of the circumstances that would justify such disclosure. Does the clause allow the disclosure of information to foreign authorities where no reciprocal relationship exists? Where such a relationship is clearly and legally established, what are the exact purposes for which this information will be disclosed? How can British drivers be sure for what purposes foreign authorities will use this information? Once the information is disclosed to foreign authorities, how can we be sure that it is stored safely and used correctly in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998?
	I wish to probe further. What safeguards are in place to prevent the improper use of such information by foreign authorities? How do we ensure that the information is used only for the agreed purpose? Furthermore, putting aside the reservations I have expressed, perhaps we may consider the intended purpose of the clause. It is worth considering the conclusions of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. It suggests that in its current state the clause does not make the necessary provisions for any enforcement which might result from the intended disclosure. The PACTS suggests that in order to work effectively it will require the introduction of "some form of owner liability". Consequently, without that element any disclosure is simply a pointless exercise which jeopardises valuable information about British citizens by allowing it to be passed into the hands of foreign governments. I hope that the Minister will respond to my concerns. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: The noble Lord raises an interesting point. There have been recent press reports about the number of European foreign-registered vehicles where parking or speeding fines have not been paid, with no response to charges relating to drivers' hour-enforcement or construction use regulations. It appears that certain member states are making it extremely difficult for the UK prosecuting authorities to obtain the information.
	While the clause may be sufficient in a reciprocal way, it is essential that the UK prosecuting authorities are able to obtain this information from all parts of the 25 EU countries and some of the countries bordering on the east. I suspect that we shall give away all the information without any information coming back to us; and, therefore, that fines for parking, speeding or anything else can be avoided by obtaining a foreign-registered vehicle and one can get away Scot free. I shall be pleased to hear the Minister respond that I am totally wrong.

Baroness Crawley: I go straight to the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Why does Clause 38 extend to all countries and not just to Europe? If Clause 38 restricted disclosure to Europe, the UK could not exchange outside that boundary without amending legislation. The present medium of exchange is the EUCARIS system. But we do not want to preclude the ability to exchange outside the EU in the future. Japan and the USA are major exporters of vehicles to the UK and the USA has already shown an interest in EUCARIS.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, also asked what protection the British driver has against misuse of data by a foreign body. Any country with which we exchange information must have secure systems in place. That would be part of any agreement. In doing that, we would ensure that the principles contained in the Data Protection Act would be followed to ensure that information was not improperly released to third parties. Such provision is contained in the EUCARIS treaty which the clause will allow us to ratify.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley also asked why we pass vehicle information to countries which do not reciprocate: that there is no one-way link on driver information. The United Kingdom has a one-way link to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, the Republic of Ireland and Gibraltar. Those countries have asked for a link to the United Kingdom and are able to check for stolen, scrapped vehicles being imported. There are benefits to the public and the insurance industry by closing the loophole for the traffic of stolen vehicles.
	Countries may also choose to have only one-way links to EUCARIS as that is a cheaper option and is effective if the traffic of vehicles is only one way. Sometimes that option is used while waiting to accede to the EUCARIS treaty. The benefits of EUCARIS can be used to persuade ministries that the system is successful in fighting against vehicle crime and fraud.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made the point that not all EU countries had signed up. Currently, the EU Commission is looking at using the EUCARIS system as the technical solution for exchanging information between all EU countries. The noble Lord also asked what the Government are doing to prevent overseas vehicles circulating in the United Kingdom without being registered or licensed. Vehicles that are licensed and registered overseas can be used on UK roads for up to six months, whether continuous or otherwise within a period of 12 months. After that, they are subject to enforcement action for evasion of vehicle excise duty. If they are not licensed in their country of origin, enforcement action can be taken at any time. We have recently reached agreement with the Republic of Ireland to check the status of Irish registered vehicles in the UK. Discussions are being held with Sweden, Lithuania and Poland to begin a pilot to take action against any vehicles not properly registered in those countries circulating in the UK.
	I was also asked about enforcement and stolen foreign vehicles detected by the DVLA. Those cases are passed to the police for investigation. I hope that that meets some of the questions that Members of the Committee have asked on this clause.

Lord Berkeley: It is terribly exciting that Sweden, Lithuania and Poland have a reciprocal arrangement. However, if I have got it right, a further 21 member states are not on that list. To return to my question earlier—if the Minister does not have the information today perhaps she will write to me:—in how many of those member states is it possible to enforce parking or speeding fines or anything else that domestic drivers suffer daily if they contravene the law?

Lord Bradshaw: As an addenda to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, why is it not possible—there being so few places where vehicles can leave the country—that before a vehicle leaves the country, outstanding fines are paid? They can be easily transmitted. There seems to be no reason why a vehicle which has incurred penalties here should not pay at the point of exit.

Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I may write to both Members of the Committee on those points.

Lord Hanningfield: I, too, need some clarity. We all want to stop vehicle crime and will do what we can to stop it wherever it is perpetrated. My concern is not just the exchange of information to the European countries. The Minister referred to Japan and the United States, but I would be rather concerned about some other countries to which we might pass information—not just about vehicle crime. As I said earlier, we must worry about the protection of the individual as well. There are several questions that need to be answered. The noble Baroness has said that she will write to others; perhaps she will also write to me to give clarity to her answer.

Baroness Crawley: Indeed, I will.

Clause 38 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Avian Flu

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement on avian influenza made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
	"On Friday my department announced that we had identified a case of highly pathogenic avian influenza in birds held in quarantine. After further analysis by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency we announced on Sunday that the virus was H5N1. We now consider the virus was found in samples taken from two birds—one Pionus parrot and one Mesia. The closest match is a strain identified in ducks in China earlier this year.
	"There has been no reported occurrence of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the United Kingdom since 1992. The premises in which this event occurred contained two consignments of exotic birds from Surinam and Taiwan. At this stage we cannot say where the virus originated. Our working hypothesis, taking account of the identification of the particular strain, is that the virus is most likely to have come via Taiwan, but it is important to keep an open mind about other possible sources and we are doing exactly that.
	"As the House knows, the birds in the quarantine premises were culled by officers from the local animal health office on Friday evening. All those at the premises who may have come into contact with diseased birds were given anti-viral treatment to protect them against risk of infection.
	"Since Friday we have been investigating the sequence of events that led to the death of the birds. As we announced on Sunday, some birds had already died in quarantine before 16 October. Thirty-two of these birds were being held in a freezer. Initial tests, which have not yet been validated, identified that H5 is present in some of these birds. We have not yet established the full circumstances of these deaths. However, our standard instructions on deaths in quarantine state that:
	'When birds die during quarantine, their carcases must be placed by quarantine staff in a fridge or freezer until the Local Veterinary Inspector can collect them for transmission to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency'.
	"Our investigations will continue and we will of course bring our findings to the attention of the House as early as possible. Meanwhile we are taking certain prudent steps to ensure that our protection against avian influenza is as secure as possible.
	"First, I want to underline the fact that this incident has demonstrated both the threat posed by avian influenza and the controls that we have in place to meet that threat. The quarantine system succeeded in providing the protection that it is in place to deliver. That is not a reason for complacency, but it is right that we should recognise the swift and effective action that was taken once the disease had been identified. It also means that our disease-free status on avian flu remains unaffected.
	"The incident took place against a background of increasing reported outbreaks of avian influenza in wild birds. Since July we have seen outbreaks first in an area of Russia and then in Romania and Turkey. There have been other confirmed and suspected cases in some of these countries and in Croatia.
	"We are taking these developments very seriously, but they are not in themselves a cause for undue alarm. Avian flu does not at present transmit easily to humans. But there is concern about the potential for avian influenza viruses to mutate into new forms that might directly affect humans. Such a transmission has not yet happened and indeed may never happen. That is good reason to be very vigilant against the establishment of avian flu. I stress that avian flu is a disease of birds and we receive a number of reports of suspected cases in any normal year, and more than normal for the obvious reasons that people are being particularly cautious this year.
	"Moreover, we in the UK, and more generally in the European Union, have worked to establish a good level of preparedness. Our contingency plan for avian flu was laid before Parliament in July. We regularly exercise the contingency arrangements at national and local level and our recent experience of managing a Newcastle disease outbreak demonstrated the fundamental soundness of those arrangements for dealing with a disease outbreak in birds.
	"We will continue to build on that good level of preparedness. In response to the specific incident that has occurred in quarantine, we issued instructions to the State Veterinary Service at the weekend that releases of birds from quarantine should now be subject to a case-by-case risk assessment. We understand that about 15 consignments of birds are currently in quarantine. Each of these will be subjected to an individual veterinary risk assessment and referred to Defra headquarters before any decision to release is authorised.
	"At the weekend, the Chief Veterinary Officer and I ordered a general review of our quarantine arrangements and procedures to be undertaken. Pending the outcome of that review, we have called on the European Commission to propose an immediate temporary ban on imports of live birds into the EU while we collectively assess the level of risk that they pose. I am pleased to say that the Commission responded very positively to this call and that a ban lasting until 30 November was agreed in the relevant EU standing committee yesterday.
	"At the same time, we are especially mindful of the potential threat posed by illegal imports. My department already works closely with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs on the control of illegal imports of animals and animal products. I have asked my officials immediately to address how we can increase our vigilance against the specific issue of illegal imports of live birds. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity will also be taking up the issue of illegal trade at an EU wildlife trade enforcement event tomorrow.
	"We were already actively working with the Commission and other member states to tackle the wider threat of introduction of avian influenza by migrating wildfowl and other routes. As a result of that work, I expect to bring before the House in the coming days sensible and measured regulations which will assist us in reducing the risk of disease and strengthening our ability to control an outbreak.
	"These regulations will implement the announcement we made last week about establishing a register of all commercial poultry producers in the country. As we said last week, we shall start the process of registration next month. For non-commercial poultry keepers, we have produced a simple, clear and effective guide to biosecurity. We are actively distributing this guide through lobby groups, veterinary networks, hobby magazines and other available channels.
	"We have also decided, with fellow member states, that it is desirable in present circumstances to prohibit bird fairs, markets and shows except where a risk assessment shows that they can be safely conducted. We are in full discussion about this proposal with potentially affected stakeholders.
	"Ornithological groups are also very important stakeholders for us and, earlier this month, we reached an agreement with them jointly to monitor wild birds. This is in addition to our existing annual programme of monitoring domestic poultry for avian influenza.
	"Finally, the regulations which we will bring before Parliament will give legal effect to provisions in the recent legislation that enable us to instruct poultry keepers to keep their birds indoors. We are urgently discussing this provision with stakeholders.
	"In conclusion, I recognise that the public are rightly concerned about avian flu. I am pleased that our quarantine rules worked to identify and eradicate the immediate risk in this particular incident, but because we are not complacent, we are taking the steps that I have indicated both to review and strengthen our protection against legal and illegal imports of captive wild birds, and, in the next few days, we will bring forward the new regulations that I have described".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I also thank his department for its briefing yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately, some of us were unable to be there because we were dealing with the Commons Bill at the same time.
	This time, avian flu has been found in two species of birds in the United Kingdom. Avian flu is not easily transmitted to humans at present, but, as the Minister said, it is possible that the virus could mutate into new forms, which is of concern. The Government are right to step up their surveillance, albeit somewhat belatedly. The Government cannot tell us whether the virus came from exotic birds in Surinam or in Taiwan, which only reflects how poor their knowledge and, consequently, their present biosecurity arrangements are.
	Following the recent increase in outbreaks in wild birds, as well as the recent outbreaks in China, where 545 chicks and ducks were destroyed, did the Government increase their surveillance at quarantine centres and ports of entry? It has been suggested that there are huge flaws in our current quarantine system.
	The Statement speaks of 32 birds that died in quarantine in the UK before 16 October. Was this number of deaths from the one quarantine centre concerned, or from all such centres? Will the Minister tell us more about the arrangements currently in place at Gatwick and Heathrow, where most birds come in?
	The Government have rightly called for an immediate ban on imports of live birds into the UK. Will the Minister explain why, when an increasing number of birds were found with the disease earlier this year, the Government did not call for an immediate ban then? In fact they did not support a proposal put forward to the European Commission back in May. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us why not.
	The Minister has spoken of the measures that will be taken both for large commercial flocks and for what I class the hobby specialists. The Statement speaks of establishing a register of all commercial poultry producers in this country. I find it amazing that this information is not already held, bearing in mind the multitude of forms that farmers have to fill in. Is it true that there is no central list? If not, how do the Government have confidence that, heaven forbid, should the disease break out in our flocks, the biosecurity arrangements would actually work? More worryingly—and the Statement touches on this—is the illegal trade that continues to flourish. How many catches of illegal imports have been made over the past two years, and was the problem highlighted more acutely with imports by air or by sea?
	We welcome the temporary halt for the ban that has been put in place. I understand it has been the practice that birds going into the quarantine centre have been mixed together, and not held according to country of origin in different batches; and also that the testing of these birds has been taken in an overall way. Why did the Government not alter these arrangements when clearly the number of birds infected with avian flu was so rapidly on the increase? Does that not surely smack of ineptitude, or at least of complacency? Will the Minister tell us how often these quarantine centres are inspected and by whom, and whether they are independently inspected?
	The Government have claimed that existing disease controls are adequate. Why, then, are they now proposing a review? Can the Minister say whether it is the current regulations they feel are inadequate, or have the existing ones not been properly enforced? Should avian flu come into our commercial flocks, resulting in the culling of birds, how will the carcasses be dealt with? Will it be by burial, burning or other means?
	In this country we have an enormous amount of free-range flocks. In the Statement it is suggested that these birds could be brought inside, but I am sure the Minister is aware that that will mean big problems for those flock producers because of the welfare problems of overstocking. In such circumstances, will compensation be made available?
	What other species are the Government concerned about in addition to our bird and poultry-producing concerns? I understand that it is possible for this disease to mutate and enter pigs, and that in Thailand cases have been reported of tiger-cats being infected as well. What reassurances will the Minister give to our UK poultry and egg producers at a time when they are concerned about this outbreak?
	There is a balance to be struck, and the Statement reflects that. There is a need to alert people to the need for greater biosecurity and greater surveillance while not unduly alarming the community. There are real issues to which we will have to return at a later date. At this time, I hope that the Minister can answer some of my questions.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I also thank the Chief Veterinary Officer and his department for organising the meeting yesterday, which I certainly found eye-opening and useful.
	Given that avian flu was a well known factor around the world last year and the year before, why did the Government prepare a contingency only in July this year? I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his place. Last year I asked him both oral Questions and written Questions on wild bird imports with particular reference to avian flu. I should be interested to know what advice the Minister was receiving at that time. There was no pressure for a ban on wild bird imports. In fact, I understand that the UK Government were the only government to oppose the initiative by the Belgian Environment Minister, Bruno Tobback, to halt wild bird imports in March this year. I see the Minister shaking his head. Nevertheless, I believe that the UK Government did oppose that initiative. I should like to know what advice the department received at that time and what reasons were given in that advice to resist a ban.
	I, too, was surprised that there is no commercial register of poultry farmers. I feel absolutely sure that one must exist. Surely such a register would have been a very early part of such contingency planning.
	On poultry farmers, there are many issues for both egg producers and broiler chicken producers. If they are forced to bring their flocks indoors, will their produce still qualify, for example, as free range? Will the Government seek to explain that to them? For farmers who want to plan ahead, can the Minister say what the compensation guidance will be in the event of any sort of—God forbid—wider outbreak, and what issues will face people at the infection sites and at a three-kilometre and a 10-kilometre range? Which poultry farmers will be eligible for payment? Will it be only those whose flocks have been culled, as was the case in the foot and mouth outbreak? What lessons can we draw from the compensation made for foot and mouth? I believe from my experience in the west country that many lessons could be learnt from the way in which that was implemented. I believe that the Government may be thinking of compensation only for those whose flocks are culled in this instance. I believe that that would be a big mistake.
	Any sort of ban on pet fairs and bird fairs would be welcome. The lesson from foot and mouth is that it is extremely dangerous to bring animals into contact with each other and then to allow them to separate. Such movements could be banned at least until we have had a chance to debate the issue in full in the Animal Welfare Bill and reach a final conclusion. I hope that that will be the case.
	Another issue is guidance on what the public should do if they find a dead bird. I understand that if they find one bird in their garden it will not be considered a reportable matter whereas four or five dead birds will be. But is that four or five at one time or four or five over the course of four or five days? The public will ask such questions, and I hope that there will be a clear answer for them.
	There was a directive—I think it was number 666, issued in 2000—that said that the practice of mixing birds from different places of origin in the same air space was absolutely not to be followed. How often have Defra inspectors ensured that the directive was being followed in the Essex quarantine facility and other locations? My final question is that if a number of birds were dying before 16 October, on what date did the Government alert the OIE—the world organisation for animal health—to the situation in the UK?
	I realise that there are a lot of questions and that there is no chance of covering them from either my point of view or the Minister's, but I hope that he will regularly update the House on the situation.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments, and for what I read as their general support for the Statement and the fact that it has been made today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, it is impossible to answer all the questions that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, posed in the past few minutes. I shall try to answer as many as I can, and I shall write with the answers that I do not give in the House this afternoon.
	Let me start by answering some of the questions, not in any particular order. I was asked about the March vote. I am afraid that the noble Baroness has believed everything that she read in this morning's papers on that. There was no vote in the Standing Committee for the Food Chain in Animal Health on the Belgian proposal for stopping wild bird imports. The letter from the World Parrot Trust was discussed at the meeting in January, and Italy's suggestion that it should produce a draft response was agreed to. In early February the draft was considered and approved. At that meeting the Belgian delegate said that his Minister would raise the matter with the Environment Council on 10 March, which he did. The Belgian raised the idea of a ban at the Environment Council meeting then. No other member state spoke in support of that plan. The Commission's view was that a ban was not justified at the time and no ban was proposed or voted on. Since then both the UK and the Commission have been monitoring changes to the global disease situation, and we now agree that a temporary ban is appropriate.
	On the sharing of airspace, Heathrow's animal reception centre is not a quarantine centre. Consignments of birds arriving at the facility are usually just checked and forwarded to an approved quarantine centre in the UK or another member state, or re-exported to a third country. To avoid cross-infection between consignments, it is important that they are kept isolated from each other, so they should not share the same airspace. In a quarantine facility or centre consignments are normally kept separately, but in a quarantine facility with a single airspace it is permissible to have two consignments in the same airspace as long as the last consignment into the facility determines when birds are free to leave.
	I was asked why we should have a review of quarantine. We are not complacent. The current incident shows, as the Statement said, both the risk and the effectiveness of our controls. It is only right to ensure that any controls we have are as effective as possible. As to surveillance in quarantine, we know which birds came from where, and we are investigating where the infection itself came from.
	On imports, Heathrow and, I believe, two other airports can take in such birds via an animal reception centre. The State Veterinary Service staff are there full time—certainly at Heathrow.
	Registration of poultry was mentioned, but there has never been a need for a complete register to be kept before. There are lists, of course. We do not want to over-regulate, but we see good reason to create a register now, and have led negotiation of the new directive which contains that requirement.
	I should point out that it has long been the case that poultry keepers are obliged to report signs of illness in their birds. and must know what to do about serious and other notifiable avian diseases. That includes operating adequate biosecurity.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about other species. We are aware of cases in tigers in Thailand. The position with regard to pigs is less clear. Apparently, there is some scientific uncertainty in that regard. The noble Baroness asked about disposal of carcasses if that was necessary. Incineration and rendering would be the two methods used. As regards numbers of inspections of quarantine centres, there is an annual inspection of the facilities themselves by a veterinary officer from the SVS. There is also a monitoring of each consignment that goes to a quarantine centre by a local veterinary inspector. I was asked whether the controls are adequate. No consignment can be released from quarantine if there have been any signs of ill health or if any laboratory tests are outstanding.
	I turn to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, about birds dying in gardens. She referred to an unusual incidence of mortality whereby five or more birds are found dead at the same time in the same place. I do not think that a lesser number of bird deaths would be considered unusual.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State invited her Minister of State, Mr Elliot Morley, in September of this year to look at the generic contingency plan, including the part of it based on avian influenza.
	Both noble Baronesses asked about compensation. Compensation payable at rates discussed with the poultry industry for birds healthy at the time of slaughter does not apply to birds that are infected. So no compensation is payable for birds that are already infected, but it is payable for birds that are not infected.
	I was asked about the OIE alert dates submitted by the United Kingdom. That occurred on the date of confirmation of the case in Essex which we have heard about—21 October. The letter has been sent by the Chief Veterinary Officer as the delegate to that organisation.
	I have sought to answer a whole series of questions but all the issues that have been raised do not take away from the fact that this was no disease outbreak. There has been a reported case in quarantine, which is very different. We do not have an outbreak of avian influenza in the UK, we have found it in quarantine, and that is what quarantine is for.

Baroness Shephard of Northwold: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned discussions with stakeholders, as he called them, about the possible necessity of bringing free range flocks indoors. Can he give the House some indication of the numbers that would be involved; in other words, the percentage of the national flock? As a subdivision of that percentage and those numbers, can he give some idea of the number of organic producers involved? Clearly, the question of compensation for expenses involved in such a move will arise in his discussions with stakeholders.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that question was touched on by the noble Baronesses on the Front Benches. I cannot give the noble Baroness the relevant figure but we are taking a power to be able to have poultry moved indoors. That is not a decision which has been taken either way at this stage. However, it is prudent to take such a power. It would obviously affect practically every bird that is reared organically because by the very nature of the way organic farming takes place those birds are not kept indoors at all times. I should have thought the measure would affect 100 per cent of organic birds and a fairly large percentage—which I cannot give the noble Baroness—of the very large number of poultry in this country at the moment. I do not want to give the noble Baroness a figure for the number of poultry in the country at the moment without checking my facts.
	I was asked whether they would still be considered free-range. We know that the Dutch took the decision, a couple of months ago, to move all their poultry indoors. That was after their experience of two years ago, when I believe 80 per cent of their birds were infected. They have been allowed to treat those birds that were outside, but are now inside, as free-range.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the Minister has covered well how the Government are doing all they can for domestic birds. During the SARS outbreak, as chairman of the astronomy and space environment group, I invited Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe—an astrobiologist from Cardiff University—to give us his views about how that outbreak occurred. Through studies of the 1918 flu epidemic he was entirely convinced, as was his colleague the late Sir Fred Hoyle, that the infective agent responsible for the outbreak of a lethal brand of influenza in 1918–19 fell directly from the skies. Can the Minister confirm whether the avian flu is the same H5N1 virus as it was in 1918? The Minister has said a lot about domestic efforts, and that we are doing everything we can, but with the wild birds it is virtually impossible. Has enough research and development been done in this area? Will the committee for science and technology, or the Minister himself, contact Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe of the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology to hear, first-hand, what other methods we should be looking at to protect ourselves from a possible pandemic?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who speaks with expertise on these issues. The advice I have just received is that the 1918 epidemic was not caused by the H5N1 strain. Having said that, if he will allow me to make inquiries as a result of what he has said I will come back to him.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the greatest danger to wild birds in this country will probably be in the spring, when they are returning from Africa? Will the Minister ensure that he does not relax quarantine regulations by the time we reach the spring?

Lord Bach: My Lords, again I know that the noble Lord speaks with great expertise on this matter—as I knew to my cost many years ago, and he will know to what I am referring. The answer is that of course we will not, and we will bear what he has said in mind.

Lord Stratford: My Lords, it really is about time the trade in exotic birds was stopped altogether. Many of these birds are caught in the wild. Frankly, if this gives us a reason to stop it altogether there is obviously a silver cloud. Secondly, does the Minister accept that there is a degree of hysteria about this? I have seen figures in newspapers such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express suggesting that perhaps 750,000 people could die in this country. That seems to relate more to the political agenda of the newspapers than any clinical analysis of the problem that we might face.
	Lastly, while it is obviously most unpleasant if you happen to have died while contracting some mutating form of avian flu, to keep the matter in perspective, I understand that about 60 people have died over the past three years. More people have probably died from eating dodgy Chinese food than contracting some form of avian flu. The last thing we want is for the Daleks from Defra to start suggesting that they want to exterminate wildlife—as is their normal response when confronted with such a problem. We do not want any proposal that migrating birds are going to be destroyed because of alarmist figures and notions that appear in the Tory press.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I was with my noble friend quite a lot of the way in his question, but when he referred to "Daleks from Defra", no doubt he was referring to me as well, and to my noble friend Lord Whitty.

Lord Stratford: My Lords, I was not referring to Ministers.

Lord Bach: Well, my Lords, that is all right then. But I still take grave offence at that expression. Apart from that, I know many people will share his view regarding wild bird imports, and I share his view that there is a danger of hysteria breaking out all over. It is incumbent on everyone—politicians, as well as those in the press and media—to have a sense of proportion about something that is, potentially, extremely serious. A balanced position is always right. I can only point out, as my noble friend said, that avian influenza is a disease of birds, not of humans. People can become infected, but rarely are.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there will be widespread support for the view just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stratford? Widespread support, that is, not only in your Lordships' House, but in the other House and the country at large. Can the Minister return to the point he made in his original Statement about the risk of cross-infection from migratory birds to, as I understood it, poultry farmed in the open air? This is obviously an extremely important issue but will only to be tackled effectively across the whole of the European Union. Is he satisfied that the experience of the Dutch over the past two or three years has been well understood? Is it being implemented in other EU countries, so that we have a robust biosecurity measure throughout the European Union on this particularly important issue?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I am satisfied about that. The Chief Veterinary Officer, who is assisting me today in repeating the Statement, and with whom I have spoken, has impressed upon me just how seriously the European Union is taking the issue of biosecurity. No doubt we are looking as a Union at the experience of Holland in particular. The noble Lord need have no fear on that account.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what will happen if it is found that birds are being smuggled into this country? What will the penalties be?

Lord Bach: My Lords, if the case is proved the penalties will be extremely severe. I cannot tell her what the maximum prison sentence is. When I write to noble Lords after this debate I will include the maximum for the noble Baroness. No-one should be under any illusions; this will be an extremely serious offence, and my guess is that the courts will take a serious view of it.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that if we find that there has to be mass slaughtering of birds we will not see any repetition of the scenes portrayed in the press recently of live birds being buried alive in large numbers? Can he assure us that there are contingency plans for the humane destruction of large numbers at speed?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I can give my noble friend that reassurance. The birds that have had to be killed as a result of events that we have talked about today were all being killed humanely, as I'm sure my noble friend would expect me to say. If this had to be on a much wider scale, of course that would be done.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, to clarify the position, if, under existing rules, a bird clears quarantine in Portugal or Greece—or any of the new entrant European Union states—does that bird then have unrestricted access to the United Kingdom?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. No, it does not. It has to satisfy those requirements in the country of origin, but when it arrives in this country a bird has to go to a quarantine centre for 30 days. There it is examined by inspectors, as I have tried to explain. So it is not the end of the story when it gets through the country of origin. It has to get through our systems as well, and they are pretty tough. Indeed, on this occasion, they worked.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the situation regarding the importation of birds from overseas into the EU? Could the situation regarding the pre-export of these birds at the country of origin also be assessed, and could further checks be done at the country of origin in order to further risk-assess the birds, prior to importation into the EU?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but I did not quite hear all of his question. Would he mind just asking it again?

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I beg your pardon. In considering the regulations on exporting birds into the EU, can the situation in the country of origin be looked at and further checks and assessments made in the country of origin? The pre-entry requirements from other countries could be looked at to reduce the risk.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sure that can be looked at on an international basis. This gives me a chance to correct a remark I made. I apologise to the House and to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. If the bird coming from Portugal had been through the Portuguese system and the controls in that country as a member of the European Union, it would not have to go into quarantine in the normal way in the United Kingdom. If it came from a third country outside the European Union it would have to go through quarantine. I apologise to the House for having got that wrong.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 132:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"AMENDMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNS REGULATIONS AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS 2002
	(1) The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S.I. 2002/3113) are amended as follows.
	(2) In Regulation 4, after the definition of "excursion or tour", there is inserted—
	""fixed speed camera" means a camera of a type approved by the Secretary of State that is situated at a fixed site and that operates continuously or from time to time for the purpose of monitoring the speed of road vehicles and securing compliance with the speed limit in force at that site."
	(3) After Regulation 58 there is inserted—
	"FIXED SPEED CAMERAS
	59. Every fixed speed camera shall—
	(a) be adequately illuminated during the hours of darkness, and
	(b) have affixed to it a clearly visible indication of the applicable speed limit.""

Lord Hanningfield: This proposed new clause is designed to improve and enhance the existing regulations pertaining to the visibility of safety cameras in line with current Government policy. As noble Lords know, the position of the Department for Transport on this issue, as maintained in its annual report of 2004, is that safety cameras are a deliberately visible deterrent. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, made that position clear in this House in June this year when he stated:
	"Our intention is not to catch drivers who exceed the speed limit but to guarantee that all drivers obey the speed limit . . . the whole point of the safety cameras is that people should be aware of where they are".—[Official Report, 29/6/05; col. 240.]
	Safety cameras are designed to encourage compliance with speed limits rather than catch those that exceed them. That is exactly what the amendment seeks to enhance in relation to fixed safety cameras. Subsection (2) amends the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, inserting a clear definition of "fixed speed camera" to tighten up its usage.
	Secondly, subsection (3) builds on the safety camera guidelines introduced in 2001 that were designed to increase the visibility of all safety cameras. The guidelines require that safety camera housing be bright yellow and clearly visible to road users from 60 metres away at 40 miles per hour and 100 metres for all other limits. Subsection (3) proposes that every fixed speed camera be adequately illuminated during the hours of darkness, which would greatly improve the visibility of speed cameras during those hours, enabling motorists to see them clearly and if necessary adjust their speed accordingly.
	Secondly, it requires all safety cameras to have affixed to them a clearly visible indication of the applicable speed limit. Consequently, the motorist would be left in no doubt of the appropriate speed at which to travel. As noble Lords can see, the new clause enhances the existing role of all safety cameras as a visible deterrent and improves it by reinforcing signage and making clear the applicable speed limit. I have no doubt that all noble Lords will want to join me in supporting this extremely sensible amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: As the Committee will know, I believe that people should keep within the law when it comes to speed and therefore that cameras do not need to be visible. They can be put where anyone believes it is a good idea to put them. If people are caught speeding, that is their problem. It is the wrong approach to make them fully visible so that you can slow down when you go past them. If you do not speed in the first place, you do not need to slow down.

Viscount Simon: I agree totally with my noble friend, and there is one further thing that I would like to say. It is proposed that speed cameras should be illuminated; the speedometer is already illuminated at night.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I concur with my noble friends on this point. I understand that the Transport Research Laboratory has conducted a conclusive study which demonstrates that speed cameras in London have reduced the numbers of people killed and seriously injured by more than 20 per cent. Comparing before and after casualties shows that cameras in London can reduce collisions by over 50 per cent on average.
	It seems to me that the amendment is about making the installation of speed cameras more difficult by adding more and more regulations and more and more requirements on the authorities and partnerships which want to put the speed cameras in position. That is entirely the wrong approach to take. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will oppose the amendment, and perhaps in doing so he could indicate that the Department for Transport is taking a more positive line on speed cameras. My understanding is that there are more than 500 sites in London where the casualty history exceeds the four killed or seriously injured criteria for cameras. They are all sites where lives could be saved, but the Department for Transport is resisting the requests from the London Safety Camera Partnership to have speed cameras installed at far more of those sites.
	Indeed, in the 66 sites identified in the London Safety Camera Partnership's proposals for the current financial year—which the Department for Transport has sat on and has not allowed to go forward—there have been in the first three months of the year some 100 collisions involving injury at those sites alone. Under those circumstances, I hope my noble friend will indicate that not only is he opposing the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, which is designed to make the installation of speed cameras more difficult, but he will also indicate that the Department for Transport will be much more flexible in allowing safety camera partnerships to proceed with installations of safety cameras where there is a clear and proven case.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I support my colleagues, but in the spirit of the way in which we work in this Chamber I should say that there is a point in the amendment. Many speed cameras are placed along roads where the speed limit is changing quite rapidly and people get confused by that; I have been confused and so has my wife. One of the points made by the amendment is that one needs to have a visible indication of applicable speed limits. The spirit of the amendment might be taken on board by the Government in ensuring that where speed limits are changing rapidly more is done to indicate it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, perhaps most of all to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey who put succinctly the case for the cameras. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was good enough to reiterate some remarks that I made on a previous occasion. I wanted then to say—and I seek to take this opportunity to emphasise—that speed cameras are there to control speed. They are there because there is a proven need for them to be there to deal with accidents. They are not revenue-raising; they are an important part of our armoury to improve road safety. I was grateful to my noble friend for illustrating the efficacy of the cameras in London, which is matched by evidence across the country.
	On his additional point, he contends that the case for cameras elsewhere is well-established. I cannot comment on detail of the individual camera locations, as I am sure he will recognise. He knows that there are criteria for the additional use of cameras. In due course, if the case is established, I have no doubt that the camera will duly be installed. We are convinced of the efficacy of cameras in restraining speed in the interests of road safety. Our improved statistics are partly to do with this aspect of road safety.
	In dealing with the amendment itself, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will forgive me if I land a low blow first and fight in a more lordly fashion thereafter. The low blow is to say that the amendment asks to change the cameras by adding a light, because we would do that through the traffic signs regulations. That, I am afraid, will not do. The cameras are not traffic signs. They do not fall into that category at all. If the noble Lord wanted to change them, he would have to address the amendment to an entirely different proposition. I am not inviting him to do so, because I am going to try to prove, in a more gentlemanly fashion, why I do not think they are necessary. I wanted to indicate, however, that the amendment is defective in those terms. We could not do it in the terms which he has indicated.
	We are of course concerned that safety cameras should be visible. I made that clear when we discussed other aspects of road safety earlier in the Bill. The specifications for the cameras are quite clear. When we previously discussed these matters, we were looking at whether certain devices would detect where the cameras were, and I was applauding the fact that we are all in favour of drivers knowing exactly where these fixed cameras are. If that conditions drivers to better behaviour, the cameras are achieving exactly their stated purpose.
	I entirely support the representations of my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, that we need clear repeaters on road safety limits. That is also built in to the regulations on cameras. I can assure him that they are quite specific in that there are mats by the cameras, a warning that the cameras are there and giving an indication of the speed limit. Changes in speed limits are carefully designated in our regulations to ensure that drivers are aware of them. That is not to say that I am not mindful of the fact that, from time to time, as my noble friend has kindly indicated, a driver may not be aware of the prevailing speed limit. The only safe action to take in those circumstances, I am afraid, is to slow down. Any other action could find one falling foul of the law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is arguing the case—which we obviously support and are seeking to advance—that drivers should be aware of where the cameras are; that the cameras do an essential job; and that they are, in fact, improving driving behaviour. I was grateful for the illustration that was given. Illuminating the cameras, however, is no addition to the position whatever. The warning sign beforehand, the cameras themselves—which are such significant and visible constructions—together with the reinforcement of speed limit sign associated with the cameras, do the job. If I thought otherwise, I would look at the amendment.
	We see these cameras working effectively, however. In fact, the complaints tend to come from the other direction—that the cameras are working too effectively, and people feel that they are being penalised when they ought not to be. There are contentions about whether the cameras are giving effect to the right speed limits. That is all bound up in legislation and regulations. The majority of drivers, who obey the law and observe the speed limits, do not need to know where these cameras are, because they are already safely progressing on their way. The cameras, of course, are a very significant part of road safety enforcement, and we think that drivers are all too well aware of where cameras are.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My noble friend has, of course, a silken tongue. He is flattering to all of your Lordships who have contributed to this discussion. Incidentally, I should perhaps have declared an interest at the beginning—I am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, and an advisor to the board of Transport for London, both of whom are parties to the London Safety Camera Partnership.
	I am intrigued by my noble friend saying that the Department for Transport was considering all of the cases for new safety cameras on their merits. My understanding is that the Department for Transport has written to every single safety camera partnership in the country and told them that they would not be approving any of the proposals for operational cases for 2005–06. I would be grateful if my noble friend could clarify the reason for that, and how it squares with the laudable aim of considering each case on its merits.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have got criteria, so we know the basis on which cameras should be installed. My noble friend will recognise that there is an interaction between the law and the way in which people behave. It is that interaction that we are concerned about getting right.
	There has been great anxiety about people adjusting to what we all recognise is a much more rigorous monitoring of road traffic in recent years, a process which—irrespective of views on transport issues in general—is bound to go on with the increased traffic on British roads. Whenever anyone indicates to me that a road improvement ought to indicate that we have made a significant breakthrough which will liberate the motorist, I am conscious of a significant statistic: that within a decade the number of cars on our roads is expected to be almost a third greater. It is bound to dictate increased discipline in the way in which we use cars to us. That is inevitable. Given that we have a limited amount of space in this country to create roads for cars, we all know that the pressure is bound to be there. The speed cameras are a reflection of that pressure in recent years.
	Against that background, we want to make sure that people are responsive to what the cameras and speed limits represent. We are aware that there has been a hostile response in some quarters and we shall soon debate an amendment on cameras raising revenue. Such anxieties among the public, and the development of devices to detect speed cameras and so on, must be taken into account. We must take public opinion with us on this, because the best way of achieving road safety is through careful drivers. All the restrictions in the world do not work as well as the intelligent man or woman behind the wheel behaving themselves. That is why we have to take the public with us.
	All that we are saying is that the road safety cameras are doing their job. My noble friend testified to that fact. We accept those statistics. We must also have an understanding of public tolerance an acceptability of them, and a realisation of the job that they are there to do. Compliance will then become more general, driving standards will improve and our safety will be enhanced on that basis.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend and do not wish to prolong the discussion much further. My understanding is that most of the operational cases put forward by safety camera partnerships were based on the criteria set by the Department for Transport. Given that, is he saying that the reason for the rejection is solely because the department perceives that there is, if you like, market resistance among drivers to there being more safety cameras? If that is the case, I would be interested to know what evidence is being used for that in terms of the individual cases put for new safety cameras. I would be grateful for more information about how the decision to reject every one of the operational cases around the country was made within the Department for Transport.

Lord Berkeley: Before the Minister answers the question posed by my noble friend Lord Harris, I point out that he seems to be saying that the view of the motorist lobby, which does not like speed cameras, is being taken into account very much more than the views of the relatives of those who have been killed because people have been speeding. There are perfectly good criteria—they have been alluded to—and statistics that show the reduction in accidents caused by the introduction of cameras. The Minister is really saying, "We are sorry for those who get killed and injured, but must ensure that the motorists don't get too upset and there aren't too many columns in the Daily Mail or whatever". Is that correct, or am I missing something?

Lord Colwyn: Would the noble Lord also agree that, in an ideal world, speed limits should be variable and cameras should be able to be turned on and off at different times? What might be a dangerous speed at eight o'clock in the morning or four o'clock in the afternoon with the rush hour is certainly not a dangerous speed at 4 am or 3 am, as on many occasions when I drive back into London.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has an interesting point. He will recognise that we have variable warning limits—they are not mandatory—on motorways according to traffic conditions and density, and so on. I have no doubt that the thinking that he has advanced will inform aspects of road safety in years to come. He will also recognise that the great safety issue is to have people secure about what the speed limit is and to get compliance with it. So far, the history with regard to cameras indicates that we have a way to go on educating a percentage of the public about compliance.
	My two noble friends, as usual in their exceedingly helpful way, have succeeded in unpacking the argument that I advanced a moment ago. Speed cameras have been in operation for the past few years. We have a lot to learn about their success. We have statistics, which show improvements in certain areas, and have commissioned an independent report looking at the whole question of cameras' deployment. It is contended by some that the placement of some cameras could be improved on. There is an argument there, although it is not one that concedes everything to the road lobby—that constraint ought not to be applied—as my noble friend Lord Berkeley suggested. In the natural order of things with the deployment of so many cameras, not everything is perfect, even in the world that the Department for Transport happily inhabits. We learn from experience. The report is on the use of cameras and their deployment over recent years, and bears in mind all representations on the matter.
	The hiatus—it was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Harris, but I put it as no more than a hiatus—on additional deployment will last until we have taken fully on board the implications of the independent report. Then we will approach the issues on the principles that we have adopted all along.

Lord Bradshaw: I do not want to delay proceedings further, but we are looking for something solid. Will the Minister give us an undertaking that, if he is delaying matters for further consultation, it will not simply be with the Association of British Drivers? He should consult the communities that the cameras protect and give prevention from severance. The roads cut the communities in half. They should be consulted, and there should not be a single consultation with a vociferous minority of motorists.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I understand the reasons that the Minister set out, and we all look forward to hearing the results of the independent report. However, perhaps the Minister will comment on the fact that the hiatus also applies to the decommissioning of some safety cameras. I understand that the London safety camera partnership had intended to decommission some sites that had not proven effective, and to relocate the equipment. Apparently the hiatus applies even to decommissioning, which seems slightly anomalous.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I do not know whether it is anomalous or simply a reflection of the fact that we are all on a learning curve and can benefit from that. I merely ask people to show a little patience while we are on the learning curve. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is concerned, of course our consultation will take on interests that are wider than that which he identified.

Lord Hanningfield: For once, the Minister and I agreed more than everyone else did, which is interesting. I appreciate a lot of what he said, as he has clearly understood the problem. I have been approached about the amendment by many Peers from all parties who said that they would like some safety cameras to be more visible. There is concern about it; one has only to look at Second Reading and hear various instances of speed cameras based, for example, in various places in Oxfordshire and on the A13 that cause offence because they are clearly not seen well and people do not know that they are there.
	I thank the Minister and shall reflect on what he said, because I think that we will come back to the matter on Report in some way or another. We have taken 25 minutes or so on this amendment and have a long way to go; at this rate, we will need two or three more days in Committee. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 133:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"MOTORCYCLES IN BUS LANES
	All bus lanes when buses are moving in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent vehicle lane shall be open to use by motorcycles."

Baroness Hanham: In moving the amendment to allow motorcycles the use of bus lanes, I remind the House that I am an elected member of a local authority and a magistrate who sits frequently on road traffic cases. The scheme to allow motorcycles in bus lanes has already proved successful in many European cities, most notably Stockholm, and Barcelona in Spain. Furthermore, it has demonstrated its advantages in this country with the permanent operation of schemes in Bristol since 1996, Reading since 1999, and many other local authorities following its success.
	First, allowing motorcycles into bus lanes contributes to the alleviation of local traffic problems. It can usually be done without delaying buses in the way that pedal cyclists often do. Secondly, it makes better use of the existing infrastructure. Some bus lanes are now enormously wide. It is a major tenet of Highways Agency policy under the 2005 local transport plan guidance. Also, it enhances air quality and encourages more practical and sustainable transport modes. Despite the compelling reasons and numerous benefits, the Government have failed so far to introduce the scheme nationwide. Why? We understand that orthodoxy among many transport experts still maintains that allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes will lead to safety problems for both the motorcycle rider and other users of bus lanes; actually, other users will be only buses and taxis.
	Allow me to draw the Committee's attention to a number of recent studies conducted by Transport for London that add weight to the raft of successful examples here and elsewhere in Europe that I have already cited. Three experimental studies have run in parts of London simultaneously since October 2002, and will shortly complete their three-year trial period. The interim reports have arrived at some interesting data. Those data have been misunderstood, particularly in the other place, but are producing evidence that this is a successful way of providing traffic movement. The data have also been reappraised by the British Motorcyclists Federation and its analysis gives consideration to external factors that have affected the experimental scheme; namely, the extensive roadworks on the A13 portion that probably have made it much more difficult for it to be assessed. However, if one takes that into account it reveals that allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes has led to a significant 19.5 per cent reduction in motorcycle accidents.
	In view of that fact, the clause would introduce a scheme that is proven to have worked both at home and abroad and would ease traffic problems, be good for the environment and, most importantly, add to road safety. I have just mentioned that particularly in London with congestion charging people are taking more and more to motorcycles. There are probably more motorcycles on the road now than pedal cycles, which is beginning to say something.
	I wanted to raise the matter and I hope that the Minister will reassure me that it will be taken on board and the scheme introduced on a wider scale. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment, but suggest that it is too modest. There is a strong case where there are bus lanes for confining motorcycles to them. Motorcycles cause danger by weaving in and out of the general traffic and not infrequently, indeed almost invariably, pulling out in front of cars at traffic lights, putting their feet under the front wheels of the cars and so on. If we were to confine motorcycles to staying in bus lanes where they exist, as my noble friend has just pointed out, it would be likely to reduce the number of road accidents. It might also do something to slow down the speed of motorcycles, which as far as I can see, driving in London almost every day, seems totally out of control.
	For example, the Blackwall tunnel in the rush hour—I see that I have support on the Benches opposite and I am glad—seems to be a motorcycle race track. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, who declared an interest in the Metropolitan Police Authority, is not in his place, because restrictions there are totally unenforced. There are motorcycles in the rush hour going through the Blackwall tunnel at what seems to be 70 miles per hour or more. Confining them generally to bus lanes where they exist would do a great deal to reduce accidents.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would not work in the city of Edinburgh, because the buses park in the bus lanes. There can be several of them and there is nowhere for the buses to pull off, so I feel that motorcycles would then weave back out into the cars' way.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Bill does not apply to Scotland.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I believe that the Bill does apply in Scotland. The Road Traffic Act is reserved.

Lord Berkeley: There may be occasions when this is a good idea. One has to think of the relationship between the traffic that is not in the bus lane and the buses. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, pointed out what happens when the buses stop. Is it quicker or easier for motorcycles to overtake on the inside or outside of the cars? Bicycles are allowed in most bus lanes as well. One has to think of the effect that the motorcycles will have on bicycles. This is a difficult problem and I urge my noble friend, if he is not going to reject the amendment completely, to move cautiously and carry out a few trials and study the results carefully before he allows such change.

Baroness Crawley: Caution is the name of the game for the Government in response to the noble Baroness's amendment. We are going to disappoint her and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who called for the amendment to go even further. I hope that I will be able to make clear the reasons why we are not yet convinced of the case as put in the amendment.
	The purpose of designating bus lanes is to give priority to buses over other classes of traffic. The more that other motorised vehicles—such as motorbikes—are allowed to use them as a statutory entitlement, the more their purpose becomes devalued. Of course we are sympathetic to the principle of improving facilities for motorcyclists including their use of bus lanes. Local authorities, as noble Lords will know, have powers to allow other vehicles to use bus lanes if they consider that to be desirable. The Secretary of State has similar powers in respect of bus lanes on trunk roads and motorways. We believe, however, that it should be left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether they should allow any other vehicles, including motorcycles, to use any of their bus lanes, taking into account their local circumstances.
	Some local authorities have allowed motorcyclists to use bus lanes. The noble Baroness will know that it is at present a minority of local authorities, but some have: she quoted the example of Bristol; Birmingham is another. The Secretary of State has permitted motorcycles and licensed taxis to use the M4 bus lane. There remain concerns however for the safety of other road users, particularly cyclists, pedestrians and indeed motorcyclists themselves. Motorcycles can be fast moving, small objects and by travelling in bus lanes they are in a part of the road where they are not expected to be. We are awaiting the results of trials in London of allowing motorcycles into bus lanes before reviewing the guidance, which presently recommends that motorcyclists are not normally allowed to use bus lanes. We would reserve our right to move any further until we have concluding evidence from those trials. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply, which was a bit like a curate's egg: half good and half bad. I understand the necessity for looking at the trials, but trials in other countries, which I identified, have all suggested that this is not something that brings more danger but is in fact safer, particularly for the motorcyclists themselves. We all know of motorcyclists—as my noble friend Lord Higgins said—particularly courier cyclists for some reason, who weave in and out of traffic on the road. In a bus lane they would not be able to do so in the same way.
	It is a road safety issue; I hear what the Minister says and for today's purposes I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 134:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"APPLICATION OF SURPLUS INCOME FROM SAFETY CAMERA ENFORCEMENT
	In section 38 of the Vehicle (Crimes) Act 2001 (c. 3) (unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) The relevant national authority may make regulations to permit in specified circumstances income from the enforcement of offences under subsection (2), over and above such income as is required to cover expenditure on the operation of a safety camera scheme, to be used in connection with the provision by the relevant local transport authority of local transport facilities or related environmental improvements, including road safety measures.""

Baroness Hanham: We are all agreed that road safety is a national issue. Certainly our discussions today have been all national in focus. It also has tangible implications for local authorities. Those local authorities have individual responsibilities, but they are also providing the funding and implementation of necessary road safety measures. Across the country there is a vast wealth of expertise and knowledge in local authorities pertaining to the geography and character of local road safety and the measures required to address them, so they are in a good position to be able to understand the specific road safety problems. The Minister mentioned that there is a discretionary power for motorcycles, which I recognise.
	Unfortunately the money currently being invested in local road safety is not adequate and could be significantly enhanced if local authorities were allowed to keep the money from road safety cameras.
	At the moment, fines collected by safety camera partnerships can be used only for the installation, operation and maintenance of approved safety cameras in accordance with the year's operational case. The Minister almost admitted that there are fine feelings among people who are fined after being detected by speed cameras that they are contributing in spades to the Exchequer and are not seeing any return for the fact that they have committed an offence.
	The surplus achieved—I have not bothered to find out how much it is, but I suspect that it is very substantial—goes to the Treasury. It cannot be used to pay for additional police or any other local authority activity that could bring in road safety measures. This clause remedies the situation by allowing any surplus income from safety cameras to be used by the relevant local transport authority for the provision of transport facilities or environmental improvements, including road safety measures. It provides a source of funding that would enable local expertise to be translated into local road safety initiatives. Most people would accept that. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee: As my noble friend Lady Hanham has just pointed out, the speed camera income received in fines goes to fund the deployment of speed cameras, yet over and above that deployment cost, there is a large surplus income. In 2003–04, this amount was about £20 million. It is sometimes called a stealth tax. It would make such good sense for that money to be spent on additional and unspecified road safety activity. So far, that opportunity has been missed since currently it is paid into the Consolidation Fund. However, the funds could benefit the safety plans of local authorities, police forces or voluntary groups. They could be awarded on a rolling programme, the surplus income from one financial year being available for grant during the next. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment or else achieve its purpose with an amendment of his own on Report.

Lord Bradshaw: I support this amendment because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I am a member of a local authority and can vouchsafe that many road safety schemes in my county are on a waiting list that stretches forward for several years because there are no funds to pay for them. Some road safety measures, such as the deployment of speed-indicator devices that are towed around and show motorists that they are exceeding the speed limit, are quite effective, but we do not have the money to continue to use them next year. There are many small safety schemes for which there is no cash. I am sure that, while motorists would not necessarily be delighted, they would be a lot less resentful about the fines they pay if they saw them funding worthwhile local road-safety schemes.

Lord Davies of Oldham: In this debate there is a danger of reiterating some of the issues that we discussed a short while ago when we considered safety cameras. Suffice it to say that it was recognised in many parts of the House that the safety camera programme is delivering positive results under the current rules on what the income can be used to fund. There is no reason to change those rules at present.
	The great danger is that we would fall into the trap that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is very keen to avoid. There is a contention that safety cameras are some form of additional taxation of the motorist because the fines generate a surplus. If we put that surplus in the hands of decision-takers concerned with the deployment of safety cameras—the partnerships and local authorities—we would be in danger of encouraging the feeling that cameras were being deployed because there was a shortage of cash for well intentioned schemes. We seek to avoid that.
	It is important that the nation is aware that speed cameras are safety devices and are part of our road safety provision. They are not to raise money. None of the money is used for those who take the decisions. If we agreed to the amendment, we would blunder into the trap and suggest that cameras might represent revenue-raising devices. They are not. The cameras are to enforce speed limits and the money is redeployed to those responsible for them and their deployment. The great danger is that, if we brought the matter down to local authority level, the contention sometimes wrongly and unfairly made about cameras would be given some weight.
	It is a position that we are not prepared to adopt. At present, the police and local authorities have no incentive to deploy cameras for any wider reason than the sole purpose of guaranteeing safety. The danger is that, if cameras became a revenue-raising device, however well intentioned the additional purposes, they would destroy the public confidence that we need to develop in them. No one pretends that this issue has been won at present. That is why we had our earlier debate on the independent evaluation of how effective the safety cameras are. I recognise the virtues of the noble Baroness's proposal—that she is seeking to bring additional resources to benign purposes—but we must resist her amendment on the grounds that I have outlined.

Baroness Hanham: The Minister must be the only person in the country who thinks that not everybody who is fined after being detected by a speed camera believes that they are for raising revenue. I have never heard anybody say anything different. I do not think that we will do much to dent that view, which is held very firmly by everybody. In fact, we might, to some extent, make a virtue out of it if people recognised something with a road safety application that had been provided in the local authority area by such money.
	I sense a fair amount of support in the Committee for our proposal. I can see that the Minister will not be persuaded tonight, but it is very possible that we may try again to persuade him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 136:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"RESTRICTIONS ON TRAFFIC ISLAND HEIGHTS
	(1) Local authority traffic islands built after 1st January 2006 shall not exceed 11 centimetres in height.
	(2) Local authority traffic islands exceeding 26 centimetres in height shall be replaced by ones not exceeding 11 centimetres in height by 1st January 2007.
	(3) Local authority traffic islands exceeding 11 centimetres in height which require damaged warning signs to be repaired or replaced shall be replaced immediately by traffic islands not exceeding 11 centimetres in height."

Lord Higgins: Amendment No. 136 draws attention to an issue that has not received great attention. I hope that the Government can be persuaded to agree to the amendment because it will improve road safety. Essentially, the problem is that traffic islands, which are clearly intended to improve road safety, are sometimes dangerous, particularly at night, when they may not be very visible. I refer not only to traffic islands at pedestrian crossings but also to the large number placed in two-way traffic roads, some of which might be quite narrow but are fairly major routes, to divide the two sides.
	My impression, particularly when driving in London, is that many islands are badly sited. They take up a large part of what is already a narrow road. As a result they are frequently hit by passing traffic. The result is that the lit pillar—I think one would call it the bollard—gets knocked down, so that late at night, particularly in driving rain or bad lighting conditions, only the base of the island remains. It represents a serious hazard to drivers, who may be driving quite sensibly and at a reasonable speed, because the height of the island is such that it causes damage to a vehicle even if it only hits it a glancing blow.
	Many traffic islands, even on the same stretch of road, vary enormously in width. Some are narrow and some may be three, four or even five times as wide. So, while the driver is going down the road carefully avoiding the narrow ones, he suddenly finds another one—again, it may be very badly lit at night—that protrudes into the traffic lane itself and can cause accidents.
	My main concern is that many of these islands are hit as they do not have warning lights. If you drive around London at night—I did last night—over a distance of some five or six miles you will pass no fewer than three islands without warning lights. The local authorities are not sufficiently vigilant, and in some cases are positively negligent, in replacing the warning lights. I frequently pass one notorious case in Bermondsey, which is, I believe, in the Southwark Council area. It constantly fails, perhaps for days on end, to have any warning light on the island. It was recently replaced, but the wrong way around. It is not a trivial matter because—and this is the purpose of my amendment—some islands are taller than the axle level of a car. If a car hits an island in those circumstances it not only stops dead but the driver may well also be killed. They are tank traps, so we should take some action to reduce the number of such islands.
	With my Treasury halo—the noble Lord opposite will remember—although somewhat tarnished over the years, I have an interest in the costs of this operation. I have phrased the amendment modestly to suggest that there should be a limit on the height of new islands built, and, secondly, extremely high and very dangerous islands of the kind I have described should be replaced by, say, January 2007. In addition, the islands that have been hit should be mended. That is very modest given the danger involved.
	It may well be argued that this is a matter for local authorities, but it is clear that these islands are put up in an incredibly haphazard way by local authorities. There is no uniformity within local authorities on the height and width of islands. You can see huge variations within a few hundred yards. There is a case for including reasonable guidelines in legislation.
	It is extraordinary that traffic islands, particularly those that pose a danger at night, are not outlined by a white line. The cost of doing that must be minimal. Such traffic islands are not readily seen at night, particularly if the light has been damaged and not replaced, yet the cost of outlining their edges in white to make them more visible would be very small and would certainly be justified.
	I hope that I can persuade the Minister to be sympathetic towards the proposal and to agree that in this respect we could improve the level of road safety at very little cost. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to intervene in a friendly manner on the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will accept this. I must complain about the drafting of the amendment. I am very sad that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is not in his place but then I suppose that Earls should stick together.
	I am happy about the use of metric measurements; this is not a metric versus imperial complaint. My complaint is about the use of centimetres—they are terrible. They are not used in either the building industry or in civil engineering. I plead with anybody drafting this type of amendment to use millimetres so that those doing the work will instinctively know what they need to do.

Lord Berkeley: Perhaps we should have centimetres in Scotland and millimetres in England. That would sort the matter out completely. More fundamentally, I think that the amendment raises serious issues. Traffic islands are there to control traffic but also to protect pedestrians and give them some refuge as they cross the road. Therefore, from my point of view as a pedestrian, the higher they are the better. The high islands are often constructed with something that used to be called a Trief kerb, which is designed to divert the car or lorry wheel back into the road if it hits it. So it is a good safety measure of its own account. You see them in many places, not just where pedestrians cross.
	If islands are tank traps, it is, to some extent, because people are driving tanks these days—"Chelsea tractors", SUVs or whatever we call them. Clearly lorries come under the same category in terms of size of wheel and height of axle. You need high kerbs to protect pedestrians against lorries. That is the purpose of an island. If the island is so high that a car hits it, it is better that the car is damaged than a pedestrian killed, which is what could happen if the kerb were lower. I should like to see most traffic islands where there is a serious risk of pedestrians being hurt being increased in height, provided that you can walk through the middle of them without having to step on to them. Therefore, I oppose the amendment, regardless of whether centimetres or millimetres are used.

Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may immediately make a comment on the noble Lord's three points. First, the curved shape that the noble Lord refers to is in some cases a reverse curve. In terms of achieving the objective that he mentions, the curve goes the wrong way around. He has only to look at the one I referred to locally in that context. Secondly, as I made clear at the beginning, I was referring not only to pedestrian islands but also—and perhaps more importantly—to those intended to divide a two-lane heavily used road that is narrow. It would be much better to use cap size, or something of that kind. On the protection of pedestrians, I am all for uniformity of height, but let us agree an appropriate height. The height of the island will not greatly help pedestrians.

Baroness Hanham: I had intended to speak in support of my noble friend's amendment. However, he seems to be doing very well on his own and I need say no more than that I support the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing a subject that we have not met in recent Bills. I had thought that there was no novelty left regarding road traffic but this is a new concept.
	The problem is accurately portrayed by my noble friend. Traffic islands serve different purposes. One purpose—it is probably the most important—relates to the defence of the pedestrian. As my noble friend emphasised, it would be odd to settle on uniformity which guaranteed security but which would greatly offend the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, by being far too high for separating traffic.
	The amendment seeks uniformity whereas the present practice involves variety. I maintain that that is right. Because the islands serve different purposes they should be of different heights. The noble Lord may have seen a number of islands which offend against his principle: they have variety but some are too high for their purpose. I understand his complaint. Whether measured in millimetres, centimetres or inches, could we conceivably settle on one height for traffic islands?

Lord Higgins: There is lack of uniformity in the height of pedestrian islands or dividing islands even within a few hundred yards of each other. It is total chaos. I am happy to accept an amendment which provides for one height for pedestrian islands and another for traffic islands. I do not want total uniformity. Let us tailor the height to the actual purpose.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hear what the noble Lord says. However, his amendment ties me down to the distinct uniformity of one figure.
	I emphasise an obvious point. The best people to judge the situation are the local authorities. There is variation because local authorities look at their road planning, road structure, the incidence of traffic and the number of accidents against criteria on which they make judgments about traffic islands.
	The noble Lord suggests that his Treasury image is somewhat less burnished than in the past. Far from it. We all hold him in the highest regard for his concern about the accurate deployment of resources. How much does the noble Lord think that it will cost the country to change every traffic island which is different from the 11 centimetres referred to down to a standard form? He has kindly indicated that he might accept two standard forms of traffic islands. We would have the minor task of telling every local authority that we have it right and they all have it wrong. Someone has to stand the cost of reconstructing all the traffic islands. That does not sound like the Treasury speaking; it is not the Department for Transport speaking. I imagine that we have the hot breath of the Treasury on our back when we consider these issues.
	The noble Lord may know of an instance where the height of the traffic island being too great had an unfortunate consequence. However, in anecdotal terms, I know of a traffic island where the height was too low and a vehicle crossed it too readily with devastating effects on the vehicle it struck on the other side of the island. So local authorities can err in that respect too. Surely it would be wrong to put into primary legislation heights which relate to different traffic circumstances and different effects.
	It is a noble try by the noble Lord. Although I am grateful to him for introducing a note of novelty into our debates, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Higgins: Of course it is a matter for local authorities to make a judgment on the appropriate height. But the reality is that they are not making any judgment: the result is totally haphazard. There are huge variations in height and width in the same stretch of road. The local authority has not taken into account the danger arising from its failure to maintain the lighting on islands. I find the Minister's reply disappointing. In the amendment I have gone out of my way to minimise the cost so far as possible except in circumstances where an island has been hit and the warning lights have been knocked off because it was in a dangerous position. I may wish to return to the issue on Report. The Minister has not replied—it is outside the amendment—to the question of outlining the edges of traffic islands; otherwise in many cases, in particular in bad weather, they are completely invisible.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is a constructive and interesting point which we shall take on board.

Lord Higgins: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 137A:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"DURATION OF VEHICLE LICENCES
	(1) The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3 (duration of licences), for subsection (1) substitute—
	"(1) Subject to subsection (7) below a vehicle licence may be taken out for any period of whole months not exceeding twelve months from the beginning of the month in which the licence first has effect."
	(3) After subsection (6) insert—
	"(7) A vehicle licence may not be taken out for any number of months more than the number of months for which evidence is presented to show that the vehicle is insured in accordance with Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988.""

Earl Attlee: The Minister has covered this point adequately in earlier debates.

[Amendment No. 137A not moved.]
	Clause 39 [Trunk road picnic areas]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 45, line 8, after "controls" insert "on entry and"

Baroness Hanham: The possible provision of picnic areas on motorways is an interesting clause. We understand that this is primarily to provide rest points so that drivers who are fatigued while driving on motorways have somewhere to pull in. Serious implications are posed by the inclusion of the clause as drafted. I wish to go into the issue a little more deeply.
	The first question is the cost of the pilot scheme. The regulatory impact assessment calculates that,
	"the cost of providing a pilot picnic site will be about £3 million with annual running costs of around £300,000 (for regular cleaning of toilets, litter clearance and landscape maintenance)."
	A number of questions arise. Who will pay the bill? Who will provide the £3 million for each of the sites? Who will provide the revenue for their upkeep? We understand that there is to be no commercial involvement in the sites. They will be areas laid out—presumably much as are les aires in France where people can pull in. But they cannot just be left; they will require maintenance. Will the Minister indicate who will provide the capital construction costs? Who will be responsible for ensuring that they are cleaned? Who will provide the security? There is always great concern about stopping on a road at any time, in particular in an area where there may not be many people. Cars roar past and not much attention is paid to what is going on. The very few that I know anything about that are there already tend to be pull-offs on the road and away from the main road. There is a huge question of security.
	Will there be a rationale following the pilot for determining the location of future sites? Will there be environmental planning requirements to go into before the areas are provided? Will they be provided near traffic black spots, which is important to take into consideration if those areas are to be for drivers who are feeling fatigued or just need to rest? Although my assumption is that there will be picnic tables, litter baskets and probably toilets, is that the intention?
	We understand that those areas will not be manned. They will just be areas at which people can stop. So who will be responsible for their security? Will it be the police or the Highways Agency? Will there be telephones so that if there are problems people can call for help? What consideration has been given to the impact of establishing those picnic areas on the operations of existing motorway service areas? Members of the Committee will no doubt be aware that there has been a substantial tail-off in the development of motorway services. I also think that there is a limit on the number that can be provided.
	Would it perhaps not be more prudent to provide those areas near to motorway areas or as part of them or, indeed, to allow more motorway pull-off sites to be developed by those who are running them commercially? No one underestimates the dangers of fatigue when people are driving on motorways, sometimes for a long time. It is imperative that they are able to move off the road when they feel tired. As I said, there is a very long distance between some motorway service stations. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to reassure me on any of those points. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: I plead with the Minister to think very carefully about this. I am advised that the Institute of Advanced Motorists has done research which indicates that 50 per cent of motorway drivers do not stop for two hours and 25 per cent do not stop for four hours; that is, driving on a continuous run along a motorway. It is essential that we do everything that we can to encourage people to take a break. I think that everyone associated in any way with the roads would endorse that.
	However, existing motorway service areas are already centres of crime. They are attended; they have good lighting; they have quite stringent entry barriers; and they stop people parking. Yet, they are crime hotspots—certainly in the police authority with which I am associated. In fact, one service station that I have in mind is employing PCSOs. We know exactly when they are not there because the incidence of crime leaps upwards.
	Unattended motorway rest areas will be centres of crime unless they are properly supervised. By that, I mean better supervised than the present motorway service areas. In addition, the areas have to be kept clean. They are, of course, rather difficult for local authorities to look after. Some of them are in quite remote places. They must not become centres for dumping unused cars, for fly-tipping and for other nefarious activities conducted by various sections of the population.
	The idea that people have to take a break is thoroughly laudable. I will go along absolutely with that. But the proposals, as they are described in the Bill, fall short of very many standards that we would want to achieve. I hope that the Minister will think about this issue before Report and perhaps come back with more detail about what is proposed. Existing motorway service operators at least know something about the areas. The local authorities do not know much about them. The police know a bit about them because they are called to deal with crime. But we should learn from experience abroad. This has been, as it were, popped into the Bill without adequate thought having been given to it.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I rise with my president of RoSPA hat on to say that I neither support nor oppose the amendments. But I do support—I hope that my noble friend has been listening—the comments that have been made in relation to these amendments to Clause 39. RoSPA is very keen on Clause 39. As Members of the Committee have said, we recognise strongly that long periods on the road are not good either for the driver or for anyone else on the roads. The cost of lives has to be put against driving time.
	Some of the points raised are important. During the summer I took part in a debate on toll roads and how long drivers should and should not drive. It was particularly aimed at lorry drivers but it applies to everyone. I spoke to someone from the Highways Agency about France, where we had just been driving. As Members of the Committee have said, the facilities there are very good. She absolutely agreed, but, of course, raised the issue of toll roads. She is right: in France we were paying tolls as we went along the motorway. I am not encouraging my noble friend to announce anything about toll roads, but how we provide those picnic areas really has to be thought out, and safety is paramount.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: As vice-president of RoSPA, I agree with the noble Baroness that safety is paramount. But I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that this has not been thought out. Unless sites are properly regulated, as in other European countries, they will become havens for anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, sex and other things. There is no definition in the Bill of what constitutes a picnic area. It does not state the facilities that would be offered and how they will be managed and regulated. There is no indication whether truck drivers as well as car drivers will be allowed to use such sites. If they are not, how will that be prevented?

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving her amendment. She asked a number of interesting questions, for which I am sure the Minister will have answers at his fingertips. The German Rastplatz are a very good example of the way to go. There is practically nothing there, but they enable motorists to stop the moment they feel tired. Perhaps the reason why motorway service areas are hotspots for crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, points out, is because there is a very attractive target; namely, lots of unattended cars. In the picnic areas that we are talking about, by definition the cars will not be unattended.
	It is important to remember that the Bill removes a prohibition because legislation, as currently drafted, prohibits such places on the motorway network. Therefore, there is no need to define what a picnic area is. I also believe that our current motorway service areas are too big, too impersonal, and too infrequent. We know perfectly well that there are planning issues and that is why I think that the Minister's suggestion about picnic areas is very good. I support it. I hope that he can answer my noble friend's important points.

Lord Berkeley: I have concerns about this. Clearly, we need as many places where motorists can stop as possible. I recall the problems that the Government have had even in getting planning permission for existing service stations. The M25 is a classic example and not the only example. How does the Minister think that local authorities will react to such picnic areas or small motorway service areas, if that is what they become? We need them, but I recall that sometimes it takes 10 years for a motorway service station to be agreed. There are still long stretches of motorway where there are no MSAs. I am not sure that picnic areas will fare any better. I shall be glad to hear the Minister's views on that.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I believe there is a small devolution issue here. While the Road Traffic Act is certainly reserved, road construction and road maintenance are distinctly devolved matters. How will the opportunity to create such areas, including the funding for them be transmitted when this is a piece of reserved legislation? The Scottish Executive, which has to operate the trunk roads in Scotland, would need a guarantee that additional funding would come from the Treasury.

Viscount Simon: I do not intend to be too mischievous, but I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, very carefully referred to the costs involved. Should this matter not have been put with Amendment No. 134?

Lord Davies of Oldham: If my noble friend Lord Simon were not seeking to be too mischievous, it seems to me that he was the sole contributor to this debate who was not. We all accept the principle and all contributions recognise the ability to create the chance for drivers to take a break at frequent intervals is a real necessity. The Committee will know that we have run a substantial campaign, even to the extent of having permanent notices on some of our motorways where drivers are likely to drive themselves too hard for too long recommending that they take a break if they feel tired. We know it is an important road safety issue.
	We are all agreed on the principle. A number of nagging details of practice have been identified. I do not believe that it is possible for us to work out a strategy whereby we would deny some drivers access to a picnic area. Once a vehicle has set its course for a picnic area, the late discovery that it might not be entitled to stop there could cause a most fearsome problem. On Amendment No. 138, we are not sure that we could make such discrimination among traffic work safely and we hope that that point will not be pressed too far.
	Security with regard to picnic sites is an important consideration. If we thought that the Secretary of State did not have sufficient powers to guarantee a proper level of security, we would welcome amendments that would give him such additional powers, but in existing legislation we already have sufficient powers. For example, if we needed closed-circuit television installed as a security measure, that would be possible and would be carried out.
	Amendment No. 145 requires the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for the provision of service areas. I understand that that is directed particularly towards the problem of lorry drivers and their periods of duty. I have some sympathy with that, but it will be recognised that under current government policy, operators of motorway service areas are required to provide parking and washroom facilities for the drivers of all classes of vehicles, including commercial vehicles. While no similar requirement is placed on the operators of trunk road services, the House will recognise that facilities exist on those networks, often specifically for the drivers of commercial vehicles. Those facilities have been developed by the private sector through the planning process and may also be provided by highway authorities under their statutory powers.
	I emphasise that the crucial determinant in all this is the highway authorities. They will bear the initial costs. They will need to be involved in obtaining planning permission in consultation with the planning authorities, but the Highways Agency will take responsibility for the development of the picnic areas. The Bill applies to England and Wales in that respect; I am advised that Scotland will deal with that aspect separately. I see the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, looking at me with his quizzical devolutionary gaze. I wither under the onslaught. Let him not press me further this evening. If I have misled him in any way, I shall take steps to correct the matter. I am no expert on devolution in this particular respect, but I am advised that that is the case.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gibson for her contribution to the debate. The concept behind picnic areas is to ensure that drivers combat driver fatigue and act responsibly. One problem, at the moment, in this regard is that there are limited opportunities to take breaks. That is the purpose behind the clause. I believe it has been welcomed on all sides. I bear in mind the points that have been made, but I hope that noble Lords will recognise that there are reasons why I am unable to accept these amendments as tabled. However, I am grateful that they have been put forward in a constructive manner.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: Will the Minister considered defining in the Bill what is the picnic area?

Lord Davies of Oldham: We would not want to go into too much definition because a commercial operator might apply to operate snack facilities at a location. We would not want to rule that out. The great danger of giving a definition of a picnic area is that we may end up suggesting that somehow only the provisions that one was carrying could be consumed in those areas. That would rule out the possibility of a commercial operator. We do not want to be rigid about the concept. We are seeking to define a short break and a short rest which is different from, and not competitive with, motorway service stations.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: Such areas might have toilet facilities. Who would clean them?

Baroness Hanham: I apologise for worrying the Minister with nagging details, but the questions from all sides of the Committee are slightly more than nagging details. They are major concerns about what such areas will be, who will look after them and how they will be designed and maintained. We do not want to see swaths of motorways turned into picnic areas with tables that are not maintained, where, as has been suggested, fly-tipping takes place and where there are unmanned and not very clean toilets, for which no one seems to have any responsibility.
	In my questioning, I have tried to clarify these points, not to be annoying or to dwell on nagging details, but because they need answering. I am not suggesting that the Minister or his civil servants have not given them any thought, but somebody needs to spell out, either before the next stage of the Bill or during it, what plans have been made. Who is going to seek planning permission for these picnic areas? Will it be the Highways Agency? If so, will it then be the agency on which we can pin responsibility if they are not properly maintained? Will there be any commercial input into the picnic areas apart from a small cafeteria providing odd cups of coffee? If there was to be a commercial input, would the business be made responsible for maintaining the site?
	Motorways are frightening and tiring places. When pulling off, the last thing one wants to see is something that is even more frightening and even more disturbing. I will come back to this matter because we need answers on what exactly is happening with these areas and the means by which they are going to be maintained. My questions were quite specific. I am sure that the civil servants will have noted them; they will certainly be in Hansard. I hope very much that we might be able to get some answers to them, either now or at the next stage. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
	Clause 39 agreed to.

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 140:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
	"POWER TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON TRAFFIC AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AT LEVEL CROSSINGS
	(1) Section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16) (which enables the Secretary of State to make orders as to safety arrangements at level crossings) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)(a), after "order;" insert—
	"(aa) may impose requirements on any relevant traffic or highway authority as to the provision, maintenance or operation of any such protective equipment, including the maintenance or operation of equipment provided before the making of the order;".
	(3) In subsection (6)—
	(a) for "the operator and to each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated" substitute—
	"(i) the operator;
	(ii) each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated;
	(iii) in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned,"; and
	(b) for "or local authority" substitute ", local authority or relevant traffic authority".
	(4) In subsection (8)—
	(a) after "situated" insert "and, in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned"; and
	(b) in paragraph (b), after "local authority" insert "or the relevant traffic authority concerned".
	(5) In subsection (11) (interpretation)—
	(a) in the definition of "protective equipment", after "television equipment", insert ", prescribed device within the meaning of section 20 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (devices for detection of road traffic offences),";
	(b) after the definition of "protective equipment" insert—
	""relevant traffic authority" means a traffic authority in whose area all or part of the level crossing in question is or is proposed to be situated or any barriers or other protective equipment in question is or are situated or is or are proposed to be situated;"; and
	(c) after the definition of "road" insert—
	""road traffic authority" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984".
	(6) This section applies in relation to barriers and other protective equipment provided before, as well as after, this section comes into force."

Lord Berkeley: In moving Amendment No. 140, I shall for the convenience of the Committee speak also to Amendments Nos. 141 to 144. All the amendments relate to the interrelationship between road and rail transport and traffic. The first three amendments relate to level crossings and the final two relate to what one tends to call bridge bashing. They are based on the principle that the polluter or the damager pays, or is responsible.
	These amendments have been put forward with great assistance from Network Rail. It has received a letter of agreement or support, or whatever one likes to call it, from the Health and Safety Executive, which is clearly very helpful. I turn to the first three amendments, on level crossings and begin with a few statistics. Level crossings account for 23 per cent of the train accident risk on the UK network. That is pretty high. Safety performance has increased very significantly in spite of the increase in road traffic levels, although it has declined recently. The past year has seen 1,800 acts of misuse or abuse by road users of level crossings. Some noble Lords may have seen what I think is quite horrendous video coverage of cars and the occasional coach or lorry, driven by professional drivers, disobeying the red lights, trying to weave through half-barriers or generally contravening the regulations. We need some joined-up management of these level crossings from the UK road and rail sectors.
	I turn to Amendment No. 140. Virtually every level crossing accident is caused by road vehicles. The consequence of the recent Ufton Nervet accident was that a number of rail passengers were killed, but it was caused by a road vehicle. Amendment No. 140 would make it easier to install road safety measures at level crossings. It would enable the Secretary of State, when a level crossing is required or each time the arrangement has to be modernised or upgraded, to require the installation of red light enforcement cameras, speed detection devices, chicanes, central barriers, or whatever would be judged to enhance the safety of the particular crossing. It would give responsibility for the safety of the highways that go across the crossing to the relevant highway authority. Of course, the technical operation of the barrier, its link to the signalling and everything else would have to stay with Network Rail, but the highways aspect of the level crossing would then be the responsibility of the highways authority, as has happened in many other countries, including the USA.
	The amendment would require those authorities to make sure that the highway across the railway is designed in a logical and coherent way. There are examples of local authorities putting bus stops 50 yards beyond a level crossing and wondering why traffic jams build up behind the bus when it stops to pick up or let down passengers. At the moment, Network Rail can do absolutely nothing about this, so it is reasonable that the highways authority has responsibility for the total highways aspect of the crossing.
	Amendment No. 141 is slightly different. There have been occasions in the past when planning authorities have given planning permissions for big developments—housing and occasionally commercial developments—where the main or only access has been via a level crossing. Network Rail has found that it has not been consulted on these permissions and on the potential danger of greater accidents and greater traffic which would be caused on a level crossing. People who work or live in these areas complain that they cannot get across the crossing because it is always shut. The idea behind the amendment is to increase the level of consultation on planning applications which have the potential to affect traffic on a level crossing. That is reasonable, especially if something like a supermarket is concerned.
	Amendment No. 142 would increase the penalties for level crossing misuse. I have given a few examples; we can give very many more. It is ridiculous that the penalties are so low for a car driving through a red light. To me, a red light is the same whether one is crossing an ordinary road or a railway. The consequence could be the same: you could be killed or somebody else could be killed. It is reasonable for such a serious offence to earn six points on a driving licence.
	I turn to bridge bashing, which causes endless delays, as many noble Lords will have experienced if they have been on a train. According to Network Rail, 2,343 incidents of bridge bashing occurred last year. The minimum delay is the time it takes to get an engineer to come and look at it; the maximum delay is obviously a great deal longer if the bridge is damaged. But the total train delay minutes is 25,000. That is 25,000 minutes' total delay to train services spread over the network in a year. If one has experienced it, it is not nice.
	Amendment No. 143 would increase the penalties for driving into a railway bridge. If you drive into a railway bridge with a high lorry or coach, you might not only damage the lorry or the coach—and even hurt the passengers on the top deck if it is double-deck coach or bus—but you could also displace the tracks of the railway sideways and cause the whole train or several trains to become derailed. If the train is going fast, a very large number of people could be killed or seriously injured. So it is reasonable to increase the penalties for driving into a railway bridge.
	The last amendment in this group, Amendment No. 144, would require local authorities to consider the installation of bridge protection systems. It is extraordinary that some local authorities apparently oppose this. If you put up a gantry or something similar ahead of the bridge and a lorry hits it, at least it has not hit the bridge. Apparently some local authorities resist this because they might be liable in some shape or form, but surely it is better to have a free-standing gantry or, if possible, a warning system that does not hurt anyone, rather than hit the bridge itself. This would make it easier for Network Rail to require or persuade the highway authorities to consider putting in such protection where it is considered that the risk or frequency of a bridge bash is great.
	That is a quick run through five amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: I support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There is a series of these amendments, and it is long overdue that our attention was turned to them. Again I enter the caveat that I cannot say these amendments are perfectly drawn, but the situations they cover are well understood. On the railways, since the installation of TPWS and the phasing out of doors that are not controlled, level crossings remain the biggest single likely cause of a rail accident. On the scale of things, an accident is bound to occur every so often, but the possibility of a serious accident really is there.
	I draw attention to the fact that the traffic authority controlling a level crossing has a lot of duty beside that of Network Rail. It is responsible for ensuring that the road is constructed safely. It also has a duty, in my book, towards developments in the area of a level crossing. Certainly people who negotiate around the lights at a crossing—and there are plenty of cases of this—should suffer a serious penalty. Getting six penalty points is taking the matter seriously. If you get three points for passing a speed camera, you want at least twice that for going around past a red light at a level crossing, because that is extremely dangerous.
	So far as bridge bashing is concerned, I was surprised by the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. If I heard them right, it was 2,343 accidents and 25,000 minutes. However, that only amounts to just over 10 minutes of delay. I have been on a bridge bash. In fact lots of trains are frequently delayed for several hours by bridge bashes. The figures may be slightly wrong somewhere.
	I have recently been in Sweden and have seen the structures they erect there in front of bridges to protect them. They are not whacking great RSJs placed across the road, but fairly flimsy uprights with a lattice across. If a lorry hits them, they fall down and possibly damage the lorry, but it does not hit the bridge. It makes a hell of a noise, I should think, when the thing comes clattering down around the front of a lorry, but I do not think that need concern us. It is possible to design something that will put an end to bridge bashing. The sites where bridge bashes occur are well-known, and it is seems nonsense that we go on year after year ignoring this problem when it could be simply addressed.

Lord Berkeley: I am sorry for intervening. Network Rail gave me this paper, but it is so small that I have made a mistake. I thought I had written it down correctly, but I had not. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is of course absolutely right. It is 2,343 incidents a year, and 325,000 delay minutes. I apologise to the House.

Lord Tunnicliffe: I rise briefly to support these amendments. I declare my interest as chairman of the Rail Safety and Standards Board. The board is a company owned by the railway industry in general, not any one part of it. We do two things that are important in this debate. First, we facilitate national initiatives on areas of safety concern. We facilitate a level crossing focus group to study this area, and the overwhelming conclusion that comes out of the work of that group is that the way to address this problem is holistically involving all parties—not only all members of the industry, but the highway authorities, the police and enforcement agencies. These clauses enable that sort of action to take place to get the best possible balance.
	Secondly, we maintain the industry's risk model. Because catastrophic accidents are so rare in the United Kingdom and in Europe in general, only by creating a mathematical model that looks at the trends that lead to accidents can you see where the risk is. Indeed the risk in many areas has gone down a great deal over recent years. The major cause of death is suicide and the next is trespassers, but after that the model suggests that there are only some 33 deaths a year on average on the railway. Fourteen of these will occur to passengers, 5 or 6 will occur to workers and some 14 to members of the public.
	When you regroup those risks and reasons, you find just under a third of them—10.35 deaths, as the model laboriously says—will come from level crossing accidents. These are the average deaths that the model predicts, and the model is constantly updated by experience. We had an example of how a passenger can die from a level-crossing accident. This is relatively rare, but when it does happen, they can be in substantial numbers. When a passenger dies, there is a risk of the driver dying, but more often it is the road user who dies. The model suggests nine drivers a year will die in level crossing accidents.
	The next most frequent cause of deaths on the railway is, as was mentioned, slam-doors, and that has now been driven down to below five a year by the enormous investment society has chosen to put into that sort of risk. What many of us think of as "the railway risk", one train crashing into another, has now been driven down to less than one a year by the investment of some £500 million in a train protection system. Safety on the railway has been purchased at a very high cost. I am not saying that is wrong, but in general society has spent a great deal of money to save lives on the railway.
	These clauses give us a unique opportunity to drive down risk at a very modest cost. This is what the model is for, to point out where the risk is, and these clauses help the industry get together to co-operate with local planning authorities to drive down the risk. There is no question that they would create substantial improvement. My company and Network Rail will be doing some further work to try and estimate this, but it is bound to be 20 or 30 per cent, and this will save some real lives.
	I will speak briefly about the clauses because my noble friend has set them out very well. If we get Clause 140 right—although it will need negotiating—local highway authorities, knowing that an order can be made, will work with the railway to seek the best possible protective solution at an individual crossing.
	There will be some quibbling in the Department for Transport—I worked for the Department for Transport for many years and find it difficult to speak about it without an expletive—about who pays what. But that is not important. At the end of the day, with the amount of money we spend on safety in the railway, this will be a modest sum for a real gain. I am sure that the Department for Transport, if it adequately consults all stakeholders, can find a sensible way to sort out the cost. The key is that the highway authorities and other stakeholders must work together. Amendment No. 140 will give it the teeth to cause that to happen.
	Amendment No. 141 moves the burden on to the planning authority. At the moment the planning authority decides whether to consult with the railway. The effect of this amendment will be to force it to consult with the railway. When you look at traffic studies and how a new housing development or new shopping development can impact on traffic many miles away from the development, it is clearly essential that the infrastructure operator, Network Rail, is involved in these major developments. One has to remember that within the planning law, once the consultation takes place, planning authorities have the powers to negotiate and/or to impose conditions on developers which for instance, at a very rarely used crossing, may show that a bridge is necessary. In the planning agreement those powers can be introduced and such incidents can be avoided.
	Amendment No. 141 will be a very good provision to that effect. I do not want the Minister to agree to it now, and I certainly do not want to have a vote—we have better things to do—but it is essential that the department consult with the industry and other stakeholders at a senior level between now and Report and come forward with amendments to give effect to the very good intentions in this group of amendments.

The Earl of Dundee: As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, indicated, this group of amendments on level crossings will do three things. It would increase the scope of punishments available to the courts to deal with those who disregard traffic lights; it would give the Secretary of State power to require highway authorities to act to reduce risk at level crossings; and it would ensure that Network Rail is consulted over planning applications which might lead to an increase in traffic over level crossings. This area of law is surely ripe for amendment, and many of the level crossings themselves go back to the early days of the railways. Clearly these amendments, if adopted, will save lives. However, if the Minister is unable to accept them, perhaps he can give us the reassurance that before long the Government will introduce specific legislation on level crossings.

Lord Snape: I too support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Without again boring your Lordships with stories of my previous railway career, four decades or so ago, when I qualified as a railway signalman, it was comparatively easy to stop road traffic at a signal box. As far as I remember, one flicked an electrical switch. I am not sure how those with impaired hearing knew that a train was coming when one did that, but by and large the traffic stopped. One heaved on a great big wheel and the level crossing gates moved from across the railway track to across the road. In those days you could slide the signal box window across and have a chat with one or two people waiting in the queue.
	We have moved a long way since those days. People are a lot more impatient these days. I happened recently to be driving in a part of the country where one of those signal boxes is still in place. I noticed that the former gates about which I have just spoken have now been replaced by a half-barrier level crossing. It is a fairly quiet branch line with a train in each direction about once an hour. When I had a brief word with the signalman about life these days, he pointed out that if you kept the drivers waiting for longer than about 30 seconds, they were out of the car threatening to thump you. That is how things are these days. He pointed out that when the train was waiting at the station—the station platform is immediately adjacent to the level crossing—drivers would often stop, see the train was not at that moment leaving the station and zig-zag across the crossing and away. These are the times in which we live. I find that the penalties for that sort of behaviour are absolutely pathetic. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that there has to be a proper deterrent for such behaviour.
	It is not only Network Rail and the mainline railway system which is involved. It is the Government's intention—as it was the previous government's—to finance and encourage the provision of light railway systems. In my former constituency of West Bromwich there is a metro system which connects Birmingham with Wolverhampton. In my last year as a Member of Parliament there was a serious accident on that level crossing. It is a slightly different system than applies on Network Rail. There are flashing red lights to warn approaching drivers that there is a tram in the vicinity. A driver approaching the crossing saw the flashing red lights, looked, saw a tram coming from the Wolverhampton direction and decided to beat it across the crossing. Had he been caught the penalty would have been slim; so presumably he thought that it was well worth the risk. What he did not see because of the houses on the left-hand side of the crossing was the tram which was coming from Birmingham that hit the car and killed his wife. It turns out that the driver himself had both been drinking and was disqualified. It indicates the carelessness of the average driver. As my noble friend said—I paraphrase him—by and large most of the accidents at railway crossings are caused by the stupidity of the private motorist. I think that he was far too generous to the private motorist when he said that. The fact is that 100 per cent of these accidents are caused by the stupidity, arrogance and contempt of the private motorist for the regulations. Proper penalties are long overdue.
	I have similar comments on bridge bashing. Without going into a great amount of detail, there is a bridge just south of Coventry on the West Coast Main Line at Brandon. Three times in the past couple of years to my knowledge that bridge has been struck by a heavy goods vehicle. The lorry drivers apparently do not know the height of their own vehicle let alone worry about whether—referring to an earlier amendment—the height of the bridge is in yards, inches or metres. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the current maximum speed limit along that line is 125 miles an hour. The carnage that could be imagined if the railway track was displaced by this sort of carelessness is enormous. There are no proper penalties for lorry drivers who misbehave in this way. It is about time that local councils and highway authorities accepted some responsibility instead of blaming Network Rail or the railway industry, faced the fact that it is the motorist who is the biggest danger to the railway user because of their carelessness and legislated accordingly.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Briefly, I like these three amendments, for these reasons. First, they make some attempt to equalise the duty of care expected of road managers and move some way towards the duty of care we expect of railway managers. That is good.
	Secondly, I understand that there was an example in Dingwall where a supermarket was to be erected beside a couple of level crossings and Network Rail found that it was not a statutory consultee in the planning process. I certainly think that that ought to change.
	Thirdly, I live beside the works associated with the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements (Scotland) Act. In part of that Act great efforts have gone into eliminating level crossings. However, the land take required for an elevated roundabout at six metres higher than the current road level and the new bridge, which has eliminated a couple of level crossings, will involve the delivery on site of about 450,000 tonnes of fill, which will not be a very green moment in Alloa although the return of the railway is a very green moment.

Earl Attlee: I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 140, 142 and 144. The good news is that I have very rarely, if ever, seen a serious violation at a railway level crossing near my home. That is hardly surprising considering the potential consequences. Of course, the bad news is that we have seen that video with very serious infringements.
	Amendment No. 144 covers bridge-bashing. I touched on the potential for disaster when speaking to a previous amendment. Noble Lords will have noticed that I have not supported Amendment No. 143 concerning the penalties. I believe that prevention is better than cure, which is why I strongly support the noble Lord's amendment on sacrificial barriers.
	It is also worth remembering that in a bridge bashing accident the driver of a heavy commercial vehicle is often killed, or can be killed because the cab of his vehicle is propelled into the roof, so there is a pretty serious consequence for the driver. If he is not killed he will probably lose his job.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who tabled these important new clauses, and to all contributors to what has been a well-informed and important debate. I shall disappoint the Committee because I shall not accept the new clauses, but all those who have spoken in the debate have made important points that we take extremely seriously. Were I not in a position to emphasise how importantly we regard those issues, and to explain the appropriate action that we are taking, I could not reject the amendments.
	I shall start at the beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned that the Health and Safety Executive agreed with a great deal of what he had to say about the dangers of level crossings. Indeed it does. The reasons have been emphasised in the debate. However, the HSE does not think that legislation is the answer. It supports the measures that we are taking, involving not legislation but the concepts behind the new clauses. That is why they are so valuable and accurate in identifying the issues.
	There is no doubt that level crossings now represent the greatest risk to safety on the railway, not because they are unsafe or have become more dangerous, but because the railway has done so well in improving its safety record in recent years. The signals passed at danger—SPADS—the operation of the train protection warning system, and the post-Hatfield investment in safety are remarkable tributes to the success of the railway in significantly reducing the risk of death or accident. As my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe emphasised, that puts level crossing deaths and accidents in sharper profile because comparatively they represent the greatest danger.
	Level crossings are safe when used correctly. The vast majority of incidents at level crossings are the result of misuse by pedestrians and motorists, not because of any failings of the train, the train driver or the equipment. We cannot be complacent when, as all noble Lords have said, accidents happening at speed at level crossings lead to disastrous consequences. That is why more needs to be done to make level crossing users aware of the dangers if they do not follow the correct procedures. The railway industry would welcome and deserves more support from highway and planning authorities to make crossings safer. That is starting to happen. The answer lies in road and rail authorities working together to resolve the issues. It does not lie in legislation. We need to realise how important the issue is to the safety of the railway, and of course to road travellers. We need to recognise that co-operation between those two agents is of the greatest importance in improving safety on the railway and the road that crosses the rails.
	My officials have explained to Network Rail that they do not consider that new primary legislation is required to bring about the changes that Network Rail wants. We stand by the position that, for reasons of clarity, the traffic authority should be responsible for the highway and the railway operator for the crossing itself. The two need to work together. Powers already exist—under the Level Crossings Act 1983, the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984—that could be used to achieve what is behind the amendments. We aim to ensure that that is achieved because it is an important priority.
	Under planning regulations a local authority is required to consult before granting planning permission with the railway operator and the Secretary of State on all development that is likely to result in material changes to either the character or volume of traffic using a level crossing. Amendment No. 141 would limit that requirement to 15 miles from the level crossing. The ODPM plans to consult next year on any possible changes to the regulations against the background of the concept that my noble friend has introduced in his amendment.
	Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 introduce another important concept—reducing the frequency of bridge strikes by over-height vehicles and the need to impress on all concerned the potential danger and cost of such incidents. My noble friend Lord Snape gave his own graphic illustration of just what that could represent, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw on late train times. Changes to penalties need to be considered on that and the railway crossings issues in the context of other criminal penalties. I consider that it would be somewhat incongruous to attach a custodial penalty to this particular instance of careless driving when it is not done elsewhere. It is not at all clear that a dangerous or careless driver cannot create similar mayhem in circumstances other than the railway crossing or bridge—important though they are.
	We have to put the offences of careless driving and dangerous driving into the context of where people commit crimes and make mistakes as drivers. Although I recognise the importance of the amendments, and what my noble friend seeks as a deterrent, I assure him that we will put it in the context of the totality of road safety and appropriate penalties for those who commit offences.
	I do not believe that Amendment No. 144 and the new Clause 28 would remove the risk of bridge strikes. Powers already exist under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to enable local authorities to take action to prevent over-height vehicles striking bridges. We shall continue to review the guidance available to local authorities, but we do not consider it appropriate to require consideration of warning devices and protective barriers in primary road traffic legislation. If we decide that it is necessary, we have the powers to do it. We are looking at the issues carefully and shall be giving advice to local authorities accordingly.
	I want to emphasise what everybody in the debate has emphasised. We have highlighted an area of very real concern—safety on the railway. The consequences of the lack of safety at level crossings are generally borne by road travellers, not by train passengers. Deaths generally occur among people on the road rather than in the train. But I do not underestimate the importance of the issue, which is why I want to emphasise to the Committee that in asking my noble friend to withdraw his new clauses, I recognise that he has presented a very forthright case of the priority that the issue requires. I assure him that the department is addressing that priority.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's wise response to Amendment No.143 on the penalties for bridge striking. If sacrificial structures are not ineffective why not build them?

Lord Davies of Oldham: Consultations will take place between the highway authorities and rail about these matters. As I indicated, we give them the highest priority. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about the Swedish experience. We will consider all experience of operating protective devices. Particular priority has always been attached to bridges over railways because we know what the consequences are when bridge strikes occur. That is why legislation is in place indicating the importance of that.
	I reassure the noble Lord that we shall take into account the whole of this debate, and all the ideas implicit in it, because we need to address this matter as a major priority.

Lord Berkeley: I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive reply but I am also very disappointed in the reaction which seems to be a case of, "We do not need the legislation because we are consulting on the matter". I am not sure that that is sufficient. I give a brief example. I am very grateful for the speech of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. The RSSB produced some recommendations on the Ufton Nervet level crossing. I tabled a Written Question asking who was going to pay for that. Why should the railways pay for something which is caused by road users? I did not receive an answer from my noble friend to that Written Question. I shall keep on. We are still in this fudge situation of saying, "Let us all share a bit of it". It is clear who pays for such things as level crossing updates—the road industry. We need a bit of clarity on that.
	However, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I shall consult with Network Rail, the Health and Safety Executive and others. Perhaps we can have a meeting before Report to decide whether we shall take the matter further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 141 to 144 not moved.]

Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.52 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

School Governance (Constitution, Federations and New Schools) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005

Baroness Walmsley: rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 8 July, be annulled (S.I. 2005/1730). [7th Report from the Merits Committee].

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I beg leave to pray against these three statutory instruments, numbers 1731, 1801 and 1730, all of 2005. I should like to deal with them in that order, if I may, even though they appear in a different order on the Order Paper.
	Statutory Instrument 2005/1731 allows community schools a fast track to foundation status if the governing body wants it. The Government now want to allow a minimum of only four weeks' consultation before the governing body can decide by a simple majority to change the governance of the school completely.
	The first thing I wish to ask the Minister about these regulations is whether they are redundant following yesterday's White Paper, or whether they have planned obsolescence built in and will spontaneously combust when we get the threatened legislation. Yesterday's White Paper offers a new category of trust school, which is a sort of foundation school with the property in the ownership of a charitable trust standing slightly outside the school. The Secretary of State's plan is very similar to a foundation school with a foundation body. The Government consulted on giving foundation bodies more power in July 2004 but dropped the proposal. Is that what we are now seeing in the White Paper? Indeed, can the Minister explain how the Government's ambitions for trust schools relate to the proposals in this statutory instrument for fast track to foundation status?
	If this statutory instrument is not redundant, there are some very relevant questions to be asked. First, how can the governing body be expected adequately to consult all stakeholders in as little as four weeks? There is nothing, so far as I can see, to stop a ruthless governing body doing this so-called "consultation" during the summer holidays when everyone is away. Parents could come back from Skegness or wherever and find their school changed irrevocably. Surely this is not real consultation?
	Secondly, what notice did the Government take of their own consultation with local authorities? Most were opposed to these proposals on the grounds that allowing school governing bodies, rather than school organisation committees, to decide their own proposals reduces democratic accountability and that an increase in foundation schools makes it difficult for LEAs to carry out their strategic planning role and provide the necessary school places in the right areas.
	So far as I can see, the Government have ridden roughshod over the LEAs and their only response to these objections was to require governing bodies to consult before publishing proposals. All I can say to that is that if governing bodies take as much notice of their consultations as the Government take of their own consultations, then there will not be much change to the proposals. Even the Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments of your Lordships' House expressed concern about this. It said in its report published on 21 July 2005:
	"We question whether the DfES have given sufficient weight to these expressions of concern since they have been made by bodies with important strategic responsibilities, as DfES themselves emphasise".
	That is a polite way of saying that it thinks the Government have not listened when they should have done.
	If, as the Government clearly hope, these new arrangements increase the number of applications from schools to take on foundation status—or trust status, if, as I suspect, they supersede foundations following the White Paper—local authorities will have an awful lot of extra work to do. They have to transfer contracts of employment and land to the governing body or trust. That is not as easy as it sounds. Will the Government make some financial provision for all this extra legal work?
	Statutory Instrument 1801 relates to community, foundation, voluntary-aided and controlled schools. It reduces the statutory period for proposals to expand to be considered—more fast tracking.
	Again the Government consulted LEAs and about a third of them replied. Most were against the proposals on the grounds that the expansion of a popular school would lead to a decline in less popular schools. As I mentioned yesterday in response to the Statement on the White Paper, no school is an island. If you do something to the admissions policy or the number of places available at one school, you will undoubtedly affect others around it. The LEA is charged with the strategic role of providing places and yet the Government are bowling googlies at them all the time. It is a bit like drawing the "Go to Gaol and pay £200" card in monopoly. The game carries on without you and there is not a lot you can do about it. Even the school organisation committee will have to answer to the adjudicator if it turns down expansion proposals from schools for strategic reasons.
	The Government have talked about a new commissioner role for LEAs, but what does that mean if they have no power to commission school places? We heard yesterday that new providers can come in and set up new schools even if there is no shortage of places in the area—indeed, even if there is a surplus of places, which is clearly going to happen in the next few years. It sounds very much like a free for all to me and I am afraid that I was not convinced by the Minister's response yesterday.
	I am concerned about the schools left behind and the children who attend them. Naturally parents will be attracted by new schools with shiny new buildings, large computer suites, drama studios and sports halls. Of course, those who can afford it will vote with their chequebooks and move into the area, and there is not a lot that we or the Government can do to stop them. But what about those who cannot afford to do that? They have to go to the schools unhappily referred to as "sink schools" and we get a self-fulfilling prophesy as all the children who need extra resources to help them overcome disadvantage find themselves lumped together in the same old school. How, then, can the Government say that there is no danger of a two-tier system through these regulations and the other proposals we heard yesterday? The answer is not all this structural change but making sure that every community school improves and becomes a good school. No parent wants to have their child travelling miles across town to go to school. Give them a good neighbourhood school and they will send their children there.
	Statutory Instrument 1730 allows schools to appoint up to four, rather than two, sponsor governors. I have several questions about this. First, what checks are done on sponsors who want to sit on the board of governors of a school? How can a school know the source of the money that has been given to it, and be assured that there is nothing unsavoury behind what may well appear to be a perfectly legitimate and proper business?
	I ask this not because I suspect that the many businesses that have already got involved with schools have done so for the wrong reasons, or have something to hide. On the contrary, most of them are fine, upstanding pillars of the community and have only laudable, philanthropic aims. However, it is a question that needs to be asked. Does anybody ask it? How do we know they are legitimate? Does the department offer any help to schools? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
	Secondly, how much does it cost to buy a place on a board of governors? We have no guidance about the minimum donation schools can expect to receive before they give away some of the power over what happens in the school in the form of a place on the board. Can all large donors to a school expect to be offered a place on the board of governors? What sort of guidance do schools receive on this matter? Of course, we welcome the interest of businesses in our schools, especially when those businesses are deeply rooted in the communities and provide jobs for parents and school-leavers. However, this seems to be an area where schools are left very much to their own devices. I suspect they may welcome some help. Perhaps the Minister can help them.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Baroness ranged widely over the whole of—

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. I was not quite sure if I ought to speak before him or not.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am so sorry.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I would like to add my voice to the prayer that my noble friend has put to the House. I would like to consider the three regulations in the order that they appear on the Order Paper: 2005/1730, 2005/1731 and then 2005/1801.
	The first regulation relates to governing bodies of secondary schools, and proposes that there should be an ability to appoint up to four sponsor governors, instead of two, to such governing bodies. The sponsor governors might come from local companies that, for example, have put up money for the school to become a specialist secondary school, or they may just come from other local bodies that sponsor the school in some way, by providing gifts either in finance or in kind. I assume that this regulation holds in spite of yesterday's White Paper, and will go forward.
	Under the 2003 school governance regulations, strict limits were put on the number of LEA governors. Indeed, as the Minister undoubtedly knows, there is a table of permutations as to the number of governors allowed in different categories. It limits it, in most cases, to two LEA governors on any school board. Why is it proposed, therefore, when the LEA is funding the school—frequently to the tune of well over £1 million a year—that someone who, perhaps, makes a gift of only £50,000 should have the right to four governors, whereas the LEA is limited to two? It seems disproportionate.
	To some extent, this picks up a point I want to make about Statutory Instrument 2005/1731, which is concerned with fast-tracking the process by which community and voluntary controlled schools become foundation schools. The point that my noble friend has raised stands here. We are uncertain how far the whole regulation becomes redundant as a result of the proposal to establish trust schools. We would be glad if the Minister could elucidate that. Assuming that it does not become totally redundant—and even if it does, presumably there will be somewhat similar regulations—there is an issue of accountability, which my noble friend has not yet raised.
	Under what I shall call the "old system" of local education authorities, the bulk of expenditure on local schools went through those authorities. A varying amount comes from central government, but a good deal of it comes from local taxpayers and went to local education authorities. What went on in local schools was the responsibility of those authorities. If people did not like what was being done in schools, then they had the right, at the ballot box during elections, to throw out those who represented that local education authority and to bring in others with other ideas on education. This process is what we would call democratic accountability.
	The total schools' budget is £27 billion. I am well aware that a good deal of this comes from central government, not from local government. Nevertheless, a fair amount comes from the local taxpayer. Decisions about schools are not now taken by the local education authority or local councillors. Yes, there is a strategic role; we shall be looking at that in a moment. My noble friend has raised many issues about this proposed strategic role on the part of local education authorities. With the money that is being spent, there is perhaps a form of democratic accountability—through the local education authority appointing, as it does, governors to the governing board who are delegated representatives of the authority there. But who is responsible for the school's budget? Where does democratic accountability lie?
	It is not at all clear that there is any democratic accountability left in these proposals. Foundation schools are allowed to spend their budget as they wish, and frequently no LEA governors are appointed to a foundation school board, so there is not even delegated responsibility.
	Is the Minister proposing—I am extending the White Paper forward here—that the Government should do away completely with the role of local education authorities? Is he saying that the budget should be taken on entirely by central government and therefore accountability should no longer be through local education authorities and through the local ballot box but directly to the Secretary of State? Is he saying that the only democratic accountability we should have is through casting our votes in the general election? That is logically where we are heading; is that what is proposed? Is it proposed that in effect in local education there is no longer to be any local democratic accountability for expenditure at that level?
	That was one of the issues raised under the consultation. I shall pick up three other points that were raised during the consultation process on the proposals last year, which the DfES has decided do not merit consideration. First, what is the conflict between the five-year strategy plans for collaboration and the proposals for foundation schools? That came out in the consultation. How is it possible on the one hand to encourage schools to collaborate, which is required under the five-year strategy, while on the other hand setting schools as independent under foundation status? Once they have foundation status they tend to compete with each other rather than collaborate. It is hardly the best way to encourage collaboration.
	Secondly, there is the issue of parent-governors in foundation schools and academies. I recognise that they are not considered under the regulations, but they have fewer elected parent-governors than community schools. How does that mesh with the Government's policies for increased parental influence?
	Finally, but by no means least, there is the vexed question of admissions. The White Paper issued yesterday talks about fair admissions, but the Minister was not at all explicit in his response on the White Paper about what is meant by fair admissions. A foundation status school is its own admissions authority. It is suggested that we might move to some system of banding, but the Minister will recognise that one school banding its own admissions is of very little value indeed. Banding has to be set across a number of schools. Is that what is suggested for admissions?
	I pose all those questions to the Minister on the regulations because although they may be superseded they are nevertheless very real questions that will arise in the future in relation to some of the proposals that we heard yesterday.
	I shall briefly mention the expansion of popular schools. I reiterate the points made by my noble friend about the difficulty of the LEA maintaining a strategic role if the important decisions are taken by the school. What does one mean by a "strategic role" for a local education authority? Presumably the key issue on the strategic roles is expansion and contraction of schools and whether you need to provide extra places. Broadly speaking, you plan, you look at the changes in demography in an area and the LEA takes a strategic view on whether new schools are wanted. I recognise that in its new role as a commissioner the LEA will be encouraging providers to come along and provide new schools if they need them. But if an individual school has the right to expand its capacity without any consultation with the LEA because it is a successful, expanding school, how is that reconciled with any kind of strategic role on the part of the local education authority? How can it be considered a strategic role? Does it not run a coach and horses through the concept of a strategic role?
	On the other side, there is the issue of closures. It is not fair on the children to allow schools to wither on the vine. Closures must be managed, and yet the proposals being put forward here would allow a successful school to expand and others just to wither away. That means that some pupils will be left in schools that are withering away, where teachers are departing, and where they are left with supply teachers all the time. Rightly, the teachers concerned will recognise that the school is unlikely to have a long-term existence and that it would sensible to quit that school. We must put the welfare of our children at the forefront. Is the Minister not concerned about that? All the respondents to the consultation from local government to local education authorities and schools organisation committees were concerned about the need to have some kind of management in the system, in so far as you are going to allow a free-for-all on expansion.
	Finally, who will pay for this? Where is it proposed that there should be expansion, does the local education authority have to find the capital sums concerned? If so, what chance is there of the local authority keeping control over its own budget? None of these issues have been answered, and the DfES rode roughshod over them in the consultation process. Why is the DfES so arrogant on these matters?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has ranged widely over the whole of the education White Paper that we published yesterday, and asked me a lot of questions which relate more properly to that than to the regulations that we are debating this evening. I will address those points that directly relate to the regulations, but I gave a full reply yesterday and I suspect we will return to these matters time and again as the Bill comes forward. I hope both noble Baronesses will forgive me if I do not go into the long litany of questions asked on those matters.
	I recognise that the two noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches have made pretty unwavering arguments throughout for maintaining the status quo against the changes that we are proposing. Our position is very simple. We are proposing sensible changes in response to the demands of parents and schools. It is schools themselves that make the decision about whether they exercise these powers; no-one outside is forcing them to change status or to expand. They are doing this in response to the preferences of the parents in the communities that they serve. That is the best way to proceed. It is right to relax the current high degree of, in our view, overregulation of the system. We foresee none of the great dangers posited by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, at the end of her speech, which are a kind of reductio ad absurdum: that because one releases one very stringent regulation the whole system may unravel. There is room for much greater responsiveness to the demands of parents and local communities in the development of their schools than we allow at the moment. Our principle is, within proper bounds, to give that pressure freedom of expression.
	The regulations that we are debating this evening all came into force in August. The White Paper was published only yesterday. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in her place, who urged me yesterday to get on with it all as fast as possible. Even with the most rapid implementation, however, we are not going to have a lot of these proposals in place for some months, and those that require legislation for a period longer than that. Schools will be able to take advantage of the regulations as of now—the proposals are in force—and we believe a number will seek to do so from an early date.
	None of the three proposals that we have made today are exclusive of the changes that we are setting out in the White Paper. For instance, the possibility of changing to foundation status will still be available after we have introduced the trust model. Indeed, we were careful to say in the White Paper that the trust model need not require the trust to take a majority of the governing body of a school. It could take a lesser share, which would put it in a position very similar to a foundation school today. Indeed, it may be that some schools wish simply to change to foundation status and not to go down the trust route. These are not mutually exclusive proposals.
	The regulations that we are debating this evening do three things. They establish a fast-track process for community and voluntary controlled schools to change category to foundation schools; they make it easier and quicker for popular and successful schools to expand; and they enable secondary schools to appoint up to four sponsor governors.
	There were 133 responses to the consultation to which the noble Baroness, Baroness Walmsley, referred. Half of them were from local authorities, and very few from schools or parents. It is perfectly proper that we weigh the responses from local authorities with the benefit that we believe will accrue to parents and local communities. There was general support for the proposal to allow secondary schools to appoint up to four sponsor governors, an increase from two under previous regulations. Increasing the number of sponsor governors from two to four gives the school the opportunity to benefit from additional support from representatives of the business and voluntary sectors, and to secure a long-term partnership with external sponsors.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether there was a kind of tariff, a going rate, for sponsors. No, there is not, just as there is no procedure by which we, from the centre, seek to vet those that schools wish to co-opt to their governing bodies. We trust to the maturity and judgment of governing bodies in these respects, in the same way that schools that co-opt their governors have always acted. We do not think there is a need for central regulation on that.
	Similarly, we do not believe that representation on governing bodies should be in direct proportion to those people who provide the funding for the schools. The capacity to serve on a governing body should surely be related to the capacity to make an effective contribution to the governance of the school, which is why governors are appointed. If the ratio of governors was dictated by the ratio of funding then, because of the way in which we provide our education funding, central government would appoint almost all the governors to all schools. That is because the great bulk of funding provided for schools comes from central government and only a small proportion of it is raised by local authorities.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, think that we in the DfES are far too centralising and seek to accrue all powers to the centre, but I assure them that we have no intention whatever of taking the powers for ourselves. We trust to the capacity of well run local schools to make such decisions for themselves, including how they want to make up the balance on their governing bodies within the rules that we have established. I stress that it is absolutely within their powers in appointing the governors to appoint people from local authorities. Many co-opted governors on schools are drawn from locally elected representatives and others who have close links with local authorities. The provisions are not intended to be anti-LEA; they are intended to give schools greater discretion within a clear set of rules to appoint governors who have an effective contribution to make to the governance function of the school. That is the purpose in forming the governing bodies.
	I also stress that there is nothing revolutionary in the principle behind the regulations. We do not have any Bishops here this evening but, since the concordat between the Churches and the state in the 1940s, voluntary-aided schools have been able to appoint a majority of governors from the foundations behind those schools. That has led to the successful management of many thousands of schools in this country, not to the deleterious consequences set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Our view is simple—if that is good enough for schools that have a reputable and effective sponsor in one of the two Churches or another faith community, within proper bounds it is a perfectly satisfactory approach for a wider range of external sponsors.
	The numbers are substantial. Nationally, more than 30 per cent of secondary schools are already foundation or voluntary-aided. Again we seek to extend, within the bounds of what schools wish to do, a process already deeply embedded in our education system. In 28 local authorities, foundation and voluntary-aided schools combined constitute an outright majority of secondary schools. We are talking about nearly one in five of all local authorities where that is the case. They include Lambeth, Essex, Kent, Milton Keynes, Liverpool and Brent. The Liberal Democrats have a predominant share in the management of several of those local education authorities, and it does not appear that the arrangements for the governing bodies of the schools have made it more difficult for those authorities to exercise their strategic functions.
	No evidence has been brought to our attention, by either those local authorities or others, that local authorities in areas where the majority of schools are foundation and voluntary-aided are unable to carry out their strategic planning function satisfactorily, or that they have found it difficult to manage the transitional arrangements referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. She said that perhaps we should pay them for it, but we see it as an absolutely central part of their administrative functions that schools be able to change status in that way. Almost all the current foundation schools changed in the first year after the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. There were many arguments made against that change, but one of them was not that local authorities were administratively not up to the task of effecting that transition. We see that as a failing for a local authority in a fairly straightforward administrative matter.
	The best local authorities—there are many of them, controlled by representatives of all three parties represented in the House this evening—already work in close partnership with stakeholders in the kind of commissioning role that we described in the White Paper. That includes their relationship with individual schools in developing their strategic plans. Only in the past week, representatives of two local authorities have come through my doors in the education department talking with no concern at all about the majority of their schools becoming foundation schools, and seeing how they can work with them to develop their future successfully. Where local authorities wish to reorganise schools in the area, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, they have the power to propose the closure of schools. That includes foundation schools where they believe that that is necessary.
	We did, however, respond to representations that stakeholders—particularly parents—would have fewer opportunities to put forward their views under the fast-track route to foundation status. We therefore introduced a requirement that governing bodies consult before publishing statutory proposals. That period of consultation is in addition to the four-week representation period following publication. Even on any interpretation of the summer, it would include the whole of a summer period between those two different periods of consultation. The additional period of consultation enables stakeholders, particularly parents, to express their views before the statutory change of category process is in train. It also enables local authorities to identify at an early stage any issues that might arise as a result of a school changing category.
	I turn to the governing bodies of foundation schools. As with other maintained schools, they must comprise a range of stakeholders including parents, the local authority and staff. Parents will continue to make up around a third of the governing bodies of all maintained schools, representing most directly the constituency affected by the management of the school. The governing body of a foundation school may make changes to the school's admission arrangements only after consulting in accordance with the regulations. Regardless of the status of individual maintained schools, all schools, including foundation schools and voluntary-aided schools, are required to comply with the law on admissions and to have regard both to the school admissions code of practice and to their admission forum's advice.
	We have also included academies in the arrangements for ensuring that schools must abide by the school admissions code of practice. We require that academies abide by and not simply have regard to it because we established their funding arrangements. An increase in the number of schools with foundation status does not weaken the existing admissions framework in any way.
	Legislation continues to require all admission authorities for schools to consult over their proposed admissions arrangements, and provides for any objections to be determined by the independent schools adjudicator. Foundation schools must participate in co-ordinated admissions arrangements and may be subject to investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman if parents complain of either maladministration or unfair treatment.
	There is no evidence to suggest that having a majority of foundation or voluntary-aided schools has prevented the effective management of the educational estate in those authorities where there is such a majority. Nor is there evidence that foundation and voluntary-aided schools have failed to embrace the extended schools and children's services agendas. On the contrary, we believe that strong and effective governance, which foundation status can often enhance, will increase the capacity of secondary schools to meet the needs of their communities and to build effective partnerships with other service providers.
	Assets were also raised in the consultation. There is already legal protection for local authority assets transferred to foundation schools and we strengthened that protection in the 2004 education Bill. Local authorities are entitled to receive compensation from any proceeds of sale, where appropriate—for example, if part of the proceeds are not being re-invested for educational purposes—and in some circumstances the Secretary of State can direct that land and buildings no longer required by a foundation school must be transferred to the authority that originally provided them.
	I turn to the expansion of popular and successful schools. We believe that allowing successful and popular schools to expand more quickly and more easily gives schools freedom to strengthen and develop in the direction they think appropriate in order to meet the needs of their local communities. We recognise of course that choice is limited by supply, but we believe that, wherever possible, parents should be increasingly able to choose between excellent local schools with different characters and strengths. These regulations are a small part of a wide spectrum of reforms designed to achieve that aim.
	Any school wishing to expand by more than 27 pupils, or increase its physical capacity by more than 25 per cent, may publish proposals to do so. Once the proposals are published there follows a period during which interested parties, including other schools that may believe themselves to be affected by those proposals, may make representations about the proposals to the local authority. Currently the local authority must then forward these representations, and any comments of its own, to the school organisation committee, which decides the proposals. If they cannot reach a unanimous decision, or fail to decide the proposals within a set timetable, the proposals are referred to the adjudicator to decide.
	The regulations that came into force on 1 August reduce the period during which representations may be made about proposals from six weeks to four by applying the accelerated procedures already applying to proposals to close failing schools. They allow the governing body bringing forward proposals to attend the school organisation committee meeting at which their proposals are to be discussed—it is often the case at the moment that schools which are directly proposing changes to their admissions number are not in attendance at those discussion—and may make representations directly. The regulations also reduce the period after the expiry of which proposals must be referred to the adjudicator from two months to six weeks from the date the committee received the proposals. They also allow all secondary schools—in place of just some at the moment—proposing expansion to appeal to the adjudicator if their proposals are rejected by the school organisation committee. In addition to the changes to the regulations, we also reinforced the presumption in guidance to decision-makers that proposals should be approved. But I should stress that this is a presumption; it is not an absolute requirement and school organisation committees and the adjudicator must decide proposals by applying national guidance to the facts of the case.
	If we stand back from these proposals and look at the pressures from local communities and schools to which they are responding, we should recognise that a minority of schools are substantially oversubscribed at the moment. Their local communities often wish to see more places provided in them and the schools themselves wish to provide those places. Around 500 school expansion proposals have been approved in the past six years, over and above the capacity of schools to expand at less than one form of entry without having to publish proposals. The overwhelming majority of these proposals from school governing bodies and from local authorities in respect of schools in their areas have been approved. This is a significant figure and shows that there is significant demand in the system for greater flexibility in expansion.
	However, we are aware that for various reasons some schools may be reluctant to expand. We fully accept that. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, today and yesterday in this respect is very well taken. This will not be the right course to be pursued by all schools. Indeed, some may positively wish not to expand because they believe it would be a bad move educationally. There are many other ways in which successful schools can extend their impact, for example by federation and collaborative arrangements with other schools, without necessarily expanding themselves. I noticed that the noble Baroness yesterday welcomed proposals for greater use of federations. The White Paper further strengthens options for forming federations, including joint governance arrangements that are tightly constrained by law at the moment. We believe that this will give a wider range of opportunities for successful schools to expand their influence within their local communities.
	Let me stress that the regulations that we are debating today do not require any school to expand in any way. Individual school governing bodies themselves will decide whether expansion is right for them. No one else has the power to require them to do so. Nor do the regulations deprive other schools of the right to be consulted. Furthermore, the governing body of any school wishing to expand under the new arrangements will still need to consult on their plans and publish formal proposals. As I said earlier, the final decision on whether the school should expand will still fall to local decision-makers.
	Both noble Baronesses made reference to schools that are struggling and have problems with falling rolls. This has always been an issue in the past and will continue to be one in the future. Local authorities have significant powers to address those problems. Challenge, intervention, support and a range of funding and other means that local authorities have to support those schools will remain in being. After our reforms, local authorities will have access to as wide a range of measures to assist schools that are struggling as they had before. The evidence is that the steps that they have been able to take in conjunction with more effective school leaders in those schools that are struggling have been successful. More than 1,300 schools have been removed from special measures since that category was introduced in the 1990s and the number of failing schools has continued to fall since 1997 when there were 515. There are now 242. There is less of a problem with schools in the worst category of failure at the moment than there was in the past. But we recognise that local authorities will have continuing responsibilities with regard to them.
	Our overriding concerns in these reforms, as in the proposals put forward in yesterday's White Paper, is that as many parents as possible have the choice of a good school and that we do as much as we possibly can to provide sufficient places in schools that parents want their children to attend. Expansion may have a part to play in this, so too may a change to foundation status, and so too may the stronger engagement of external sponsors. The regulations we are debating today provide for all three options. Many other policies will also be applicable to many schools. These proposals are one element, but only one element, in ensuring that we secure more good schools, that we meet more parental demands and that we ensure that expectations are higher across the system.
	In that spirit I commend the regulations to the House.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I believe that it is in order for me to respond briefly to the Minister. I thank him for his very extensive response to the Prayer. Perhaps I may say to him first that if he thinks that the Liberal Democrats are happy with the status quo and do not want any change, he has misunderstood. I thought that in both Houses of Parliament yesterday we made it very clear that we are not happy with the status quo. Just because we do not agree with how the Government propose to change the status quo and improve matters does not mean that we are not absolutely at one with them in wanting to do that. But, it is in the nature of real opposition that we are challenging, we ask questions and we do not necessarily agree with the Government's way of doing things. We want to improve quality and to remove inequity. We perhaps do not always agree about the best way of doing that.
	I thank the Minister for his comments on my question about whether some of these regulations will become redundant following yesterday's White Paper. Of course we accept that whatever legislation comes along the track as a result of yesterday's White Paper will take some time, but I am still not clear whether in the fullness of time two of these regulations may become redundant. I suppose only time will tell, because we do not yet know exactly what legislation the Government will propose.
	I would say, however, that these regulations, as the Minister has just commented, came into force in August. Parliament has a right to pray against such regulations. They were only published in July and they came into force during the Recess. I have to ask the question: what is Parliament for? It is to question all these things; and we have the power to do it. In what way could we have exerted that power in the middle of the Recess before the regulations came into effect? I think the Government were wrong. They should have waited until after this debate, which we are having early in the Session and at the first opportunity we have been given.
	I shall make one or two comments on specific remarks that the Minister made. He mentioned the four governors which schools can now have. He said that the provision allows schools to form relationships with more businesses. But I question whether a business has to have a place on a governing body before it is prepared to go in and help that school. I think not. It is perhaps a rather cynical suggestion that that might be the case. I think many businesses will want to go in and help schools without having a place on the school governing body. I very much hope that that continues.
	I asked whether schools could be given help and guidance about, perhaps, screening businesses with which they were thinking of having a stronger relationship. I certainly was not asking for the DfES to say who should do that with schools. That would be the sort of centralist approach that I would be very much against. Perhaps the Minister slightly misunderstood what I was asking for there. I certainly think that it would not be inappropriate for the department to offer some help if schools wished it. Does the Minister want to intervene?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am sorry if I failed to address the point the noble Baroness raises. The Specialist Schools Trust, the umbrella body, does a huge amount to link schools with sponsors under the specialist schools programme, provides a good deal of the help and guidance to which the noble Baroness refers. It is greatly valued by schools. I accept that schools look for assistance in making arrangements for sponsors. That is one of the prime functions of the Specialist Schools Trust which is widely regarded across the whole secondary school movement.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I clearly overlooked the Specialist Schools Trust's function in that respect. I am glad that they are there to do that for schools.
	Finally, clearly the Government have a job to do with LEAs. It was clear from the consultation that they were worried and unhappy about their ability to carry out the strategic role they are being asked to do and the fact that the Government have not taken account of that anxiety in these regulations. I hope that the White Paper will evolve into something which gives more help and guidance to the LEAs in the new role they will be asked to play and takes account of what might happen if certain schools are allowed to grow like Topsy and other schools are potentially left behind. We have been painting a potentially black scenario today because it is our job to question the Government and to challenge what might happen under the Government's proposals. I hope that some of the scenarios we have painted do not occur. We are concerned about the well being of all the children.
	I shall read carefully what the Minister said in response to our Prayer. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Education (Change of Category of Maintained Schools) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2005

Baroness Walmsley: had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 8 July, be annulled (S.I. 2005/1731). [7th Report from the Merits Committee].

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall not move the Motion.

Motion not moved.

Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005

Baroness Walmsley: had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 11 July, be annulled (S.I. 2005/1801). [7th Report from the Merits Committee].

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall not move the Motion.

Motion not moved.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.52 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.43 to 8.52 pm.]

Road Safety Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.
	[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]

Viscount Simon: moved Amendment No. 146:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
	"DRIVERS' HOURS
	Schedule (Drivers' hours: enforcement) contains amendments about the enforcement of the provisions about drivers' hours."

Viscount Simon: I shall speak briefly to this amendment standing in my name, which is grouped with Amendment No. 170. When this Bill was first before Parliament, it contained the exact words of those two amendments—word for word. The election was called and it fell by the wayside. I have tabled those amendments again because I would love to know what happened. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: I have good news for my noble friend. Those amendments seek to reintroduce various provisions relating to the enforcement of drivers' hours rules that were included in Schedule 5 of the previous Road Safety Bill introduced last November, as my noble friend rightly said. We certainly needed to modify the existing enforcement framework for drivers' hours rules in order to reflect the imminent introduction of new technology for recording drivers' activities—the digital tachograph—and to tighten-up existing powers in the light of experience.
	So, in principle the Government support this amendment. However, the changes that they seek have been put in place. They had to be in place by early August when we expected the first digital tachograph equipment in vehicles to enter service. Because of that, the Government decided to achieve these changes through secondary legislation instead, using its powers under the European Communities Act 1972. Regulations to that effect, based on Schedule 5 of the previous Bill mentioned by my noble friend, were laid before Parliament on 13 July and came into force on 5 August. I hope, in view of this explanation, that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Simon: I am so glad that my noble friend foresaw that I was to table an amendment to this effect. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 147:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
	"STATIONARY VEHICLES
	Within one year of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall introduce regulations to prohibit vehicles, stationary for more than two minutes, from having their motors running."

Lord Berkeley: This is a probing amendment to see whether the Government will look with favour on some kind of regulation that would require drivers to switch off their engines if they are stationary for more than, say, two minutes. Often outside the House one sees people sitting in their cars with the engines running. I passed one this morning somewhere north of Hyde Park. The driver was asleep in his car, with the seat tipped back and the headlights full on, with the engine running. I believe that in Switzerland it is standard practice that if one is stuck in a traffic jam for more than two minutes—I am sure one never is in Switzerland—one has to turn off the engine, which is good for global warming, good for local pollution and saves energy. I think it is a very good idea. I am interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: I am not sure that this is a matter for legislation. It is important to turn off the engine when one can for the reasons explained by the noble Lord, but this is much more a matter for driver training. That is why I return to the need for a compulsory driver improvement training scheme, as that could be covered.

Viscount Simon: I have a vague recollection—I have no idea whether I am right or wrong—that Westminster City Council already has such a by-law in place.

Baroness Crawley: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for raising this issue and to other noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I have listened with great interest and, of course, the Government are very much aware of the impact that road transport can have on the environment. Like my noble friend, we are concerned to minimise that impact as far as practicable and to deliver clean air as quickly as possible. It is a high priority for us.
	Emissions can often be prevented by turning off the engine when a vehicle is stationary for more than two minutes. Publications issued by the department already advise drivers to switch off their engines whenever it is safe to do so. The noble Lord should also be aware that under Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations it is already an offence to cause emissions by leaving a vehicle's engine running while stationary. The offence carries a maximum fine of £1,000. These requirements are predominantly enforced by the police. But we have also introduced regulations in England that enable local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices in relation to any vehicle with an engine running unnecessarily.
	These offences do not apply when a vehicle is in traffic, where I consider there could be real practical difficulties of enforcement and resources. Our view is that powers already exist under the Road Traffic Act to make regulations that would achieve the objectives behind this amendment. I agree with the noble Earl that this is not for legislation and that the current mix of existing regulatory controls, combined with voluntary action backed by Government and local authority advice in relation to traffic-related conditions is the most effective means for controlling the situation, which my noble friend and others have described. We therefore believe that we are already doing a great deal. Enforcement and fines exist. A proper mix of voluntary and statutory initiatives is the way forward. In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. She is quite right—as is the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—that the key is probably not to put this measure in primary legislation. I am pleased that the powers exist already.
	As in so many other instances today, it would be nice to know how many people have been convicted or fined for these offences. I suspect that the Minister will say that the Government do not collect the figures. A time must come soon when the department does collect figures such as these and many of the others we have talked about today, but that is probably a subject for another day. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 148:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
	"POWER TO REQUIRE INFORMATION RELATING TO ROAD SAFETY MANAGEMENT
	(1) The appropriate national authority may direct a local traffic authority to provide it, within a specified period, with specified information connected with any aspect of the performance of their duties under sections (Duty to reduce road danger) and (Arrangements for road safety management).
	(2) The information that may be specified in such a direction—
	(a) must be information which the authority have in their possession or can reasonably be expected to acquire; and
	(b) includes, in particular, information relating to—
	(i) the management of road safety in relation to a local traffic authority's road network; or
	(ii) the use of their road network, or the risks imposed or faced by different kinds of traffic.
	(3) A direction under this section may be given to two or more local traffic authorities or to local traffic authorities of a description specified in the direction.
	(4) A direction under this section given to a London authority must be copied to the Mayor.

Lord Berkeley: In speaking to Amendment No. 148, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 149 to 151. The amendments are self-explanatory, so I do not need to waste too much of the Committee's time on them. They seek a holistic, joined-up approach to road safety policies and management which is equally applicable to all types of road users. As we know, that includes pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, car and lorry drivers and anyone else we can think of. Many of these steps are taken already, but I know that all the road safety experts believe that the idea of a totally joined-up approach to road safety is very important. I hope that the Government can either aspire to one quite soon or, even better, tell me that it exists already. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has introduced the amendment. I can give him the assurances he requires. He will recognise that local authorities are accountable in a number of ways. Local highway authorities in England are already required to prepare and submit five-year local transport plans. These include a road safety strategy in which each authority must set out its overall approach to delivering road safety in its area. The road safety strategy should articulate the road safety situation in an authority's area and demonstrate how a range of interventions can address the casualty problem. The strategy should show how the needs of all road users—occupants of motor vehicles, motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists—are to be addressed. Each local highway authority is also required to set targets for casualty reduction in its local area. The Department for Transport's guidance on local transport plans for the period 2006–11 now requires highway authorities to produce and publish a speed management strategy, which I know my noble friend will approve of, as part of their overall approach to delivering road safety in their area.
	Ultimately, it is for local highway authorities to determine how they deliver road safety in their local areas. They already provide the department with a great deal of the information sought by my noble friend's amendments. It is not the department's place to be overly prescriptive about the way in which authorities operate, but I hope I have given my friend the assurances which he sought.

Lord Berkeley: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for those assurances. At this late hour, I shall read them with great interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 149 to 151 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 151ZA:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
	"STOPPING UP AND DIVERSION OF CROSSINGS
	(1) Section 47 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (c. 42) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) for "footpath or bridleway" substitute "road".
	(3) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(3) In this section "road" means any highway or other road to which the public has access.""

Lord Bradshaw: I will read carefully what the Minister said concerning Amendments Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143 and 144. I will raise the matters in these two amendments with him in discussion before we return to the matter on Report.

[Amendment No. 151ZA not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 151ZB and 151A not moved.]

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: moved Amendment No. 151B:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
	"DRIVER FATIGUE: CONSULTATION
	(1) The Secretary of State shall consult regarding the impact of driver fatigue on road safety.
	(2) In undertaking such consultation, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—
	(a) what measures might be introduced to mitigate driver fatigue on the basis of the latest available evidence;
	(b) the impact of untreated sleep disorders on driver safety and ways of raising driver awareness of the risks presented by such conditions; and
	(c) the timely provision of services through the National Health Service to treat sleep disorders.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall each year place in the Library of the House of Commons and in the Library of the House of Lords information relating to the proceedings of this consultation and his response to it."

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I shall be brief. I mentioned on Second Reading that RoSPA welcomed the proposals in the Bill for the trunk road rest areas, and I outlined some of the drivers most likely to be affected by driver fatigue. These included young male drivers, truck drivers, company car drivers and shift workers. However, I did not mention those who are affected by sleep disorders, because, I will be quite honest, I was not aware of the amount of drivers affected by such disorders. After Second Reading I was contacted by the co-ordinator of the working group on sleep disorders, and, after talking to her and to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I am pleased to associate myself with them and move this amendment.
	Excessive sleepiness is a major contributor to fatal road accidents. Untreated sleep disorders are a serious problem, and are generally not recognised among the population. Indeed, an estimated 80 per cent of those suffering from such disorders do not recognise that they have a medical condition that can and should be treated, just as any other medical condition would be. Our belief is that raising awareness of this condition, and in particular the danger it creates for drivers suffering from it, must be a key part of any road safety strategy. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this amendment. The Government fully share her concern and that of RoSPA about driver tiredness contributing to accidents.
	This is a serious issue. We do not need consultation on the appropriate measures, as suggested by the amendments, because we have carried out research in recent years that has given us the data needed to inform the department's advice to drivers and our ongoing publicity campaigns. Results from that research suggest that up to 10 per cent of accidents on the road network are sleep-related in one way or another, which is a truly shocking figure, and that up to 20 per cent of accidents on motorways and similar roads result from drivers' sleepiness. We estimate therefore that there are some 300 fatalities a year involving a sleeping or nodding driver.
	The department has evaluated a practical method to enable drivers to overcome sleepiness. We put all this research on our website. We know that sleep does not normally occur suddenly or without warning, and this is true for those with most sleep disorders too. Drivers who try to stay awake by opening the window or turning up the radio before they start to close their eyes are taking risks. That is not to say they are not to be commended for being aware of the condition they are in, but it is not a sufficient strategy to overcome the problem. Relying on cold air or the radio to stay awake is a pretty forlorn strategy.
	Research tells us that the most effective remedy is to stop somewhere safe—not, I hasten to add, on the hard shoulder of a motorway, which is one of the most unsafe places to stop anywhere in the country—and have a couple of cups of coffee or other caffeinated drink, followed by a sleep of about 15 minutes to give the caffeine a chance to kick in. This is our considered advice on the basis of our research. As will be recognised, we have service areas about every 30 miles on our motorways, and we are seeking to increase the places where people can stop and possibly partake of a coffee they have brought with them in a flask or something. Those measures will help to combat fatigue and thus driver sleepiness and they will reduce accidents.
	In the light of all that knowledge, our aim is to change driver behaviour. We do not think that we need to consult on it; we know what needs to be done. However, sleep disorders are a particular feature and can be a medical condition. They can be a risk to road safety, and drivers are obliged to make them known to the DVLA so that a medical investigation is carried out and a decision taken on whether the driver should retain his or her licence or hold a licence subject to medical review after a short period.
	As part of the department's ongoing research programme into various aspects of the medical fitness to drive, a workshop on driving and the medical aspects of excessive daytime sleeping was held in 2002 and those themes emerged from it. So we are fully seized of the necessity for action in this area. We do not intend to be anything other than unremitting in our campaign to make drivers aware of the dangers of sleepiness.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank my noble friend for that reply. In the light of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 151C:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
	"RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION
	When negotiating with the European Union, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to avoid retrospective legislation concerning the construction and use of historic vehicles which would tend to prevent their use for non-commercial purposes."

Earl Attlee: The Minister has been praying in aid EU directives that will do wonderful things for us—no doubt some will. However, once a directive has been passed it is very difficult to undo it. Additionally, our civil servants have a bad habit of gold-plating the UK regulations.
	It is sensible that most people have a pastime other than work. Many people collect and use historic vehicles—cars, buses and lorries. I am one of them. UK legislation has always strived not to be retrospective. Wherever possible, new UK regulations apply only to new vehicles, and only when there is an imperative safety case is it retrospective. My concern and that of many historic vehicle clubs is that EU legislation will be agreed that makes it impractical to use historic vehicles on our roads. My amendment seeks to ensure that Ministers will take that into account when negotiating with EU and other European organisations. What assurances can the Minister give us that this important recreational activity will not be inadvertently terminated or be made very much more difficult by legislation coming from Europe? I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I support this amendment very strongly. I own an old car—a 1931 Lagonda. The insurance is very cheap because we are all very safe drivers in these things. We cannot afford to go fast. A few years ago the Government kindly said that we did not have to pay vehicle excise duty. There is no need to include these cars in any new legislation coming from Europe or anywhere else. We do not do very much mileage each year. These cars are a source of great fun. I suggest that they are really very safe vehicles taking into account the way in which they are driven. So I fully support this amendment.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to declare an interest in old cars, since it has been there for 50 years. In those 50 years I have been involved in many committees and other think tanks to try to keep vintage cars on the road. All governments have been very sympathetic towards our cause. However, there are considerable problems with retrospective legislation. If someone in Spain said that everyone has to have four traffic indicators, it would completely ruin those cars. The policy followed by successive governments is that the original specification when they were new is good enough. I hope that this issue can be explored.
	Old cars are a very popular hobby involving 300,000 people. Some of your Lordships may be watching the London to Brighton run in two weeks' time. We are asking the Minister to support the hobby and to preserve the right to have one's car on the road. It would much appreciated as it would do enormous damage to the hobby if such a proposal were not followed.

Viscount Simon: I place on record that I also approve of this amendment.

Baroness Crawley: I thank noble Lords for their contributions. While I am on my feet, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for all his work over many years in this area. All sides of the House are proud of the work that he has done.
	I hope to reassure noble Lords that there is nothing to worry about. We know of no European legislation or proposals that adversely affect the private use of historic vehicles. As the noble Earl said, virtually all proposals concerning the technical standards required of vehicles applied to new vehicles entering service after a specific date. We would not expect any suggestion for retrospective application of technical standards to vehicles unless there were unusual and robust safety or environmental considerations. It is particularly difficult to envisage any such circumstances that would be considered proportionate for the relatively small number of historic vehicles that are used privately.
	Section 43(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 already requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that no undue hardship or inconvenience will be caused by the application of new construction and use regulations if they are applied to vehicles registered earlier than a year after the new regulations were made.
	Both the European Commission and the Government would have to justify any provision in a regulatory impact assessment. The Government already undertake such assessments whenever new vehicle standards are proposed, including anything that might affect historic vehicles. We would not support any proposal that could not be justified on the grounds of proportionality or cost-effectiveness. I hope that the noble Earl will feel reassured and withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for her extremely helpful reply. I hope that she will make sure that when officials are doing their duties in Brussels and elsewhere they read the Minister's words. I am much happier with her response to this amendment than my amendment about inspection reports. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 40 agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 152:
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"INTERPRETATION: HIGHWAYS ACT 1980
	(1) In section 329 of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66) (further provisions as to interpretation), for—
	(a) the entry relating to "bridleways" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
	(b) the entry relating to "cycle track" after the words "pedal cycles" insert "or human transporter";
	(c) the entry relating to "footpath" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
	(d) the entry relating to "footway" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
	(e) at end insert—
	"human transporter" means a self-balancing electric device with two driven wheels in a transverse line and a maximum unladen weight not exceeding 50 kilograms and speed limited to 13 miles per hour irrespective of gradients less than 10%."
	(2) Nothing in the Highways Act 1835 (c. 50) shall prevent a person from using a human transporter as defined in section 329 of the Highways Act 1980."

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 152, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 153 and 154.
	The amendment concerns a device known as a human transporter. Its marketing name is Segway. It is a self-balancing, two-wheeled, electric human transporter device. I had to spend some time defining the amendment, and to my chagrin, I realise that there is a cross-referencing error, which I am sure the Minister will not hesitate to point out.
	Its overall dimensions are no larger than a slightly portly adult. It has the ability to emulate human balance—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will respond to the amendment. It does this with the aid of very clever gyros made by British Aerospace. It can carry a reasonable amount of shopping or a bag. I consider that I am fit but I find just walking back to Pimlico carrying a laptop fairly strenuous. This device would allow me to get back to Pimlico without any effort. It would also avoid the need to use a private car or a taxi.
	I know that several noble Lords have tried out the device recently. What I find extraordinary is the very fine quality of the controls. To move forward, it is necessary only to lean forward; to slow down or go backwards, you just lean backwards; to turn, you turn a twist grip, and the device can neutral turn. The controls are very clever. It can neutral steer in its own length. The performance level of the Segway—in other words, how fast it can go—can be altered by the manufacturer or by the user to prevent it going too fast for him.
	Empirical data gathered by Segway indicate that owners use the device to replace cars for journeys of between two and 11 kilometres. These very short car journeys are the most polluting because the cars' catalytic converters and other systems will not be hot enough to function properly.
	Resistance tends to come from groups who refuse an opportunity even to test the machine. One of the most important and respected pedestrian advocacy groups, City Streets in New York, took a very positive position on the use of the Segway after its members tried it out for themselves. I take it that all those who have advised the Minister on the merits of this machine have tried riding it, although I am not convinced that they have.
	The Segway is in use in many European countries but there is a legislative difficulty: it is not appropriate to use it in the road because it goes too slowly. However, it cannot be used on the footpath, where it belongs, because our highways legislation allows only pedestrians or invalid carriages to use the footpath. The Segway is designed for fully able-bodied people; it is not an invalid carriage. Thus it is a matter for central government and primary legislation if we want to take advantage of it.
	When Segway discussed the device with the UK Government it was met with the response, "I am terribly sorry but you cannot use it in the road because it is not a proper motor vehicle, and you cannot use it on the footpath because it is not a pedestrian or invalid carriage. To alter that would require primary legislation. I am so sorry". I hope that the Minister will be a wincy bit more positive tonight.
	When drafting the amendment I noticed that only one very small provision of the Highway Act 1835 is still extant. It is hardly worth keeping. Amendment No. 154 suggests removing that tiny bit of legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Rogan: I support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I first experienced the Segway human transporter on a visit to South Africa about 12 months ago. I used it extensively and enjoyed it. As an able-bodied person I was able to use it. I found it extremely interesting. I strongly support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.

Lord Berkeley: I tried this machine out at lunchtime in your Lordships' car park, along with a few other noble Lords. It was remarkably easy to use. When it was in high speed mode you travelled along the footpath at quite a rate. You could also go more slowly. I persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, to try it.

Noble Lords: Oh.

Lord Berkeley: I do not think that is a source of amusement. She was quite frightened to start with but she asked me to tell the Committee—she is very sorry that she cannot be here tonight—that by the end of her trial she was rather taken by the device. A few other noble Lords tried it as well. It is a great shame that officials in the Department for Transport have not tried it and neither have Ministers, but it is there. It is useful for some people. I prefer a bicycle because it gets weight off and I get some exercise, but it is a useful device. It is rather like a motorised scooter and probably rather more convenient.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, the device is illegal because no one can work out where it should be used. If it had wings it would probably fly, but then the civil aviation Act would not apply to it. It is important, for if the Government do nothing, they become a bit like King Canute. This thing is here, and being used by Italian police for chasing people. This morning, one of the people who had this machine said that he regularly uses it to cycle through Hyde Park, on going to work every day. He was stopped for riding it on the cycle track by a policeman who was driving a police car. That was all right; the policeman can do anything he likes. Yet this poor man, who was not hurting anybody, gets stopped. I do not think he was arrested, but it is pretty stupid.
	So my message to my noble friend is: can we please take this seriously? It has arrived. I do not know whether it should be on the road, the pavement or the cycle track. There will be all kinds of representations from people, but we have to try to fit it into our transport system so that it can be used safely, along with everything else. I urge the Minister to get moving on this, so that people do not start getting arrested for using it, which will look awfully stupid for the British Government.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I have a declared interest in electric vehicles for disabled people. We have the same problem in driving on the road, which was solved by putting a rotating orange lamp on the top. If owners of the Segway had such a lamp on the top and went on the main road they would not be infringing the law at all. I seriously suggest that there could be a way of dealing with this without having to go into all sorts of extraordinary legislation for a specialised vehicle.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I suspect my noble friend Lord Attlee will be much encouraged by the support he has received this evening. I should like to add my name to that.
	I was in Lexington, Kentucky a month ago and managed to speak to a police officer there who patrolled the streets on a human transporter. He said he found it an excellent way of patrolling farmers' markets and such street activities, and that it was a good public relations tool. He also said that he had used it to arrest and detain a thief trying to make a getaway in a stolen car. I must say I found that slightly hard to visualise, but he nevertheless assured me that he had managed it. Needless to say, his chief of police was delighted, strongly supported their use and has ordered a further three for use by the Lexington police force. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the Italian police are using them quite extensively, and I believe our own police force are carrying out evaluation tests at the moment.
	In America, they can be legally used in 42 States. In Europe, they are receiving generally favourable support, particularly in France, Italy, Portugal and Greece. The German police are currently conducting a pilot which should lead to a change in their legislation. In May 2003, Luciano Caveri, then chairman of the European Parliament committee on regional transport and tourism, said:
	"I have to admit that the Segway has positively impressed us for its maneuverability, its safety features and for the implications that a broad use could have on the environmental and traffic conditions of many of our cities. For this reason—on behalf of my colleagues of the Transport Committee—I would like to invite formally the responsible Member States bodies to authorize explicitly and as soon as possible the use of the Segway Human Transporter on European pavements".
	I do not normally support everything that comes out of the EU, but I am particularly pleased to be able to quote that tonight, as I believe that they could provide part of the transport solution for the shorter journeys in our cities. Furthermore, I can even visualise park and ride with one option being the ability to rent a human transporter for the last leg of one's journey.
	Because they are not cheap—costing upwards of £2,500—and have a top speed of just 13 mph, they are most unlikely to be used by antisocial or aggressive users. In any event, I understand that would-be owners are required to undergo training prior to use, at which time considerate use would be given a high profile. So I strongly support my noble friend's amendments, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I hope they will receive a sympathetic ear from the Government.

Viscount Simon: The first two amendments appear exceedingly good. I wanted to try out the Segway at lunchtime today, but unfortunately another appointment suddenly came up. It sounds like a marvellous machine. However, Amendment No. 154 was slightly dismissed as being fairly irrelevant. I have received an email from a retired police officer who is an expert in such matters. I shall read his comment on the amendment:
	"Is this a precursor to moving to the European system of driving on the right or just anarchy on our roads?".
	I leave it at that.

Earl Attlee: I confess that I have forgotten what that section of the Highways Act does.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Let me enlighten the Committee about that section—not that I am hanging the whole of my argument on it; very far from it. If we repealed that section of the 1835 Act we would allow horses on pavements as well, which would lead to some interesting issues for pedestrians. There is some merit in the 1835 Act in protecting the pavement for pedestrians. I am in great danger of appearing a killjoy of antique vintage in my inability to share the enthusiasm that has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. I share it in one obvious sense, in that I can see that the form of transport has great potential. I recognise the strong advocacy of it. I was a little shocked to hear it suggested that I would be advised by officials who would not know one end of the machine from the other. It might be that Ministers do not have the privilege of getting close to such machines, but I reassure noble Lords that officials have a close acquaintance with the human transporter.
	Obviously, there is a safety issue here. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, said, and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also mentioned its use by police. Let me be clear: we will not be able to justify a machine because it is of particular use to the police. They are entitled to avail themselves of all sorts of technology to deal with criminals that we would not give to the ordinary citizen. I hear the point that the machines can be extremely useful for law enforcement, but so can mountain bikes ridden by a policeman in pedestrian precincts. But we would not then say that because a policeman is empowered to use such machines safely in a pedestrian precinct that opens the way for all mountain bikes to be deployed in the same way by an ordinary member of the public. I am not going to accept the argument about police use, although I commend the machines on that feature. I hear that certain sections of the British constabulary are availing themselves of the opportunity to try them out, and that fills my heart with great joy if it aids in dealing with crime.
	There is a safety issue in the use of these machines our pavements. First, a machine that can travel at 12 mph needs some careful handling and could be a threat to other pedestrians. Not all pedestrians are as adroit and competent as your Lordships undoubtedly are. After all, from what I hear everyone managed the technology of the new machine almost as soon as they were introduced to it. That speaks volumes for our youthfulness and ability to learn. However, other pedestrians have all sorts of incapacities that make them a good deal less mobile. Our pavements are used by many people with limited walking ability and a limited ability to get out of the way of a machine moving at a speed even approaching 12 mph. There is a question of where this machine should be used.
	I am not going to appear a killjoy; I am delighted to hear of its development, and I can see ways in which it will add to the advantage of all of us. I cannot, however, accept the amendments at this stage. We would need the fullest consultation before we introduced primary legislation to make arrangements for this machine. I am not at all clear that it should be used on the pavement. We may have to start thinking of designated track ways.

Baroness Hanham: In bus lanes.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness is helpful, as ever. I cannot go "snap" on that, either. We could have dedicated avenues for these machines, so that we separate them from pedestrians. Suffice it to say that of course I welcome the enormous enthusiasm displayed here today. The department is fully acquainted with the issue and does not seek to restrict such an exciting development. However, it would be premature to abrogate all legislation which protects our pavements and gives safety to our pedestrians—most of all, the 1835 Act.

Lord Swinfen: Does the Minister recall that there was a time when a man had to walk in front of a car with a red flag? He seems to be saying "This is a new idea, so it cannot work". Let us hear him say "This is a new idea; let us see how we can make it work".

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He has just won for me a wager with my officials that somebody was going to mention the man with the red flag.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, except for the Minister, at whose response I was not surprised, therefore I cannot be disappointed. My noble friends on the Front Bench were much wiser, because they kept quiet—no doubt because they can see which way the wind is blowing.
	I remind the Minister of the history of citizens' band radio. At one point they were illegal, and then everyone started using them. The Government then, reluctantly, had to make them legal. That is the situation we could end up with—people using them in such large quantities that it becomes impractical to do anything about it. We would then have let the law come into disrepute.
	The Minister talked about safety, as I expected him to. What is he doing about people roller-skating at high speed on footpaths? They cannot stop themselves—they are a kinetic time bomb. Whereas, on a Segway, you just lean back and it stops very quickly indeed—probably faster than one could stop when running.
	I am grateful for being reminded what the 1835 Act covers. The way in which that legislation works is extremely old-fashioned. I was very surprised that it has not been incorporated into some later legislation. That is a minor matter, just something I picked up.

Lord Berkeley: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. How and when does the department intend to evaluate this machine and come up with a solution as to where it can be operated legally. If it is not to be permitted on a footpath, is it on a road with a flashing yellow light on one's head, or whatever? These machines will be used, as many noble Lords have said. It would be much better if the department came up with a policy that everybody accepted, preceded by consultation, than if it were just left like the CB radio. Perhaps he could give us some idea as to what the process is, and the timescale.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I cannot do so with any precision. Let me make the obvious point. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggests, certain decisions will need to be taken in the near future. This debate enables us to take the issues forward. The department is all too well aware of the public interest in this machine, and also public concern about the safety aspects to which I have given voice. This debate has been extremely helpful in sharpening the minds of the department towards the issue, and of course we have to address a new safety issue on our streets.

Earl Attlee: As I said, I am not completely surprised by the position of the Minister, but I am sure that we will have to return to the issue on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
	Clause 41 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
	Clause 42 agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 155:
	After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
	"REMOVAL OF VEHICLES BY POLICE CONTRACTED RECOVERY SCHEMES
	In section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (removal of vehicles etc.), after subsection (2)(c) insert—
	"(d) may, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f), provide for Police Contracted Recovery Schemes;
	(e) any regulations for a scheme under subsection (2)(d) shall provide that—
	(i) all appointed recovery operators are accredited to an International Standards Organisation standard;
	(ii) a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) is, subject to sub-paragraph (iii) or (iv), given the opportunity to arrange removal himself;
	(iii) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if a constable believes safety or other road users would be compromised and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal before the appointed recovery operator;
	(iv) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if the road on which the vehicle is permitted to rest is a special road and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal within a time specified in the regulations or one hour, whichever is the greater;
	(v) if a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) arranges removal of the vehicle himself and his choice of recovery operator arrives before the appointed recovery operator, he shall be under no obligation to the appointed recovery operator or the authority;
	(vi) neither the authority, the chief police officer or the police authority may benefit from a preferential scale of charges or free services from an appointed recovery operator;
	(vii) when a vehicle has been abandoned by the owner or registered keeper the authority shall pay the appointed recovery operator the charges prescribed under section 102 of this Act;
	(viii) an appointed recovery operator shall not be required to give any financial or other consideration for being appointed;
	(ix) the police authority may make a financial charge, as prescribed, against the person whose vehilce falls within subsection (1), for despatching the appointed recovery operator, and such a charge may be collected by the appointed recovery operator;
	(x) any scheme must allow for competition, new operators joining the scheme, and aim to have operators no further than a prescribed distance from each other;
	(xi) no person shall be appointed under a police contracted recovery scheme if he is not of good repute as defined in sub-paragraph (xii);
	(xii) a person is of good repute if he meets similar requirements to paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995;
	(xiii) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing no more than 3,500 kilograms unless approved by the chief officer of police on each occasion;
	(xiv) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing more than 3,500 kilograms unless there are unusual difficulties requiring extra facilities, but rates shall not exceed those published under sub-paragraph (xv); and
	(xv) appointed recovery operators shall publish their scale of charges in such form as may be prescribed in one or more local papers;
	(f) before making any regulations under subsection (2)(d) the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers necessary and in particular the authorities empowered by regulations under section 99(1).""

Earl Attlee: The hour is late and I will not weary the Committee with the detail of why the amendment is so vital. Suffice it to say that the amendment concerns provision of vehicle recovery services, particularly those organised by the police. There are several problems on which I could elaborate. One is the congestion caused due to breakdown, but there is another serious problem about police-organised recovery schemes. Recovery operators pay a substantial fee to be on the list. It is not a bribe because it is open, but I doubt whether the average motorist is aware of it. Of course, the motorist pays in the end. Even worse, the police frequently organise their scheme so that their own vehicle recoveries are undertaken for free—and guess who pays for that.
	It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that I moved exactly the same amendment during the passage of the then Police Reform Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave a helpful reply by saying, "Yes, there is a problem and we're working on it", or words to that effect. Will the Minister give us an update and tell us what has been done since his noble friend gave such a helpful reply? I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hope that I can be more helpful to the noble Earl than he suggested I was on the previous amendment. We do not think the amendment necessary. After all, police have been removing vehicles under the Act for more than 20 years and have not felt the lack of regulations relating to their contractual arrangements. We would not wish to introduce a new regulatory burden without a proven need, and do not see that need. That is not to say that the present arrangements are perfect; the noble Earl will identify areas where they fall down. However, we recognise that we must take into account a wide range of interested parties, including drivers whose vehicles might be removed, their insurers and the operators who might remove the vehicles.
	I assure the noble Earl that a working party of the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the insurance industry, the operators and the Highways Agency is engaged in conversation and consultation, with regular meetings and recently a most successful workshop on the issue. I am happy to take the opportunity to update the report that my noble friend Lord Rooker gave on the matter. Active work is going on and the issue is being addressed.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response. We do not have time to pursue the matter now, but I may return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 156:
	After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
	"REGULATIONS CONTROLLING DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENTS
	(1) Section 220 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) (regulations controlling display of advertisements) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3), insert—
	"(3A) A local planning authority must exercise its powers so as to ensure compliance with the provisions of these regulations in its area with respect to advertising that can be seen by drivers on a special road (motorway) or a trunk road.""

Earl Attlee: I have no notes on this amendment, which concerns advertising on motorways. We have debated the subject before. Most noble Lords believe that it is a serious problem because it distracts motorists from their driving. There is a risk that they will see an advertising hoarding for a very interesting product and try to write down a telephone number. It is an obvious danger. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I support the amendment.

Baroness Crawley: Yes, there is a problem, and yes, we are working on it, in the words of my noble friend Lord Rooker. We will, however, resist the amendment because we wish local authorities' enforcement powers to remain discretionary. A duty to enforce in all cases, which the amendment would bring about, irrespective of the nature and circumstances of the breach, would be an additional and unwarranted burden on local authorities.
	The Government do not consider that the matter should be subject to specific regulations, but that does not mean to say that we are not concerned about the proliferation of advertisements alongside motorways and we are working on initiatives to ensure that where such breaches occur, adverts are quickly removed; for instance, we have written to all local planning authorities reminding them strongly of their powers to act in such cases and urging them to do so. We intend to contact those companies and advertisers which are displaying advertisements on those sites, setting out the regulations and asking them to remove unlawful adverts, and we are looking at other measures that we may introduce to help local authorities deal with the problem and eradicate unlawful motorway advertising. I hope that that is enough to satisfy the noble Earl.

Lord Berkeley: That is all very well, but the problem has been going on for years. When we have local authorities where some of the members probably own land adjacent to motorways and they can get £1,000 per month for having a trailer with a sign on it, being sent a letter by the department saying, "I hope that you'll take that away", is not going to solve the problem. We need much stronger action. I will be interested to see the result of the current initiative but we will return to it again and again to say, "Please remove it", when the farmers who are claiming poverty are receiving £1,000 per trailer per month, which is a good piece of revenue.

Earl Attlee: I am a little grateful for the Minister's response. We often say that it is a helpful response; the right description would be a hopeful response. In which cases would it be appropriate for local authorities not to intervene to have an advertising hoarding removed?

Baroness Crawley: I am presuming that there are advertisements that would be lawful, as my briefing says that we are requiring local authorities, companies and advertisers to remove unlawful advertisements—which ones exactly, I cannot say at the moment. I will inquire further and write to the noble Earl.

Earl Attlee: I was about to suggest to the Minister that she wrote to me. It is important that the farmers do not become used to this useful source of income. Once they have become used to it and many of them start jumping on the bandwagon it will be difficult to stop it. It almost goes back to my point about the CD radios—we would never agree to it in legislation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Simon: moved Amendment No. 137:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"DISPLAY OF PROOF OF THIRD PARTY INSURANCE
	(1) Any vehicle used or kept on a public road must display proof of valid third party insurance, in addition to a valid vehicle tax disc.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the display of proof of valid third party insurance."

Viscount Simon: We are debating important issues to do with road safety and connected matters. It is significant that they require additional time and energy by the police service. That time and energy would be wasted if the prosecution procedure faltered for want of adequate and appropriate representation in the courts. I move this amendment in the knowledge that it has the full backing of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It will allow a more streamlined process to deal with some traffic prosecutions while allowing the CPS to concentrate its efforts on the more serious traffic offenders. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: While I do not doubt the good intentions behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend, I have to disappoint him. The Government consider that any individual exercising a right of audience before a magistrate should be required to demonstrate their competence to do so. I believe that the amendment is intended to allow a police officer to appear as prosecuting advocate in road traffic cases in order to speed up the case. However, the amendment is not clear about who would be eligible to exercise the right of audience, nor about what would constitute a minor road traffic case. If the case were more complicated than originally thought, the consequence of the amendment might be to introduce an unnecessary delay in the proceedings. Judges have discretion to allow police officers an audience before them. If a road traffic case is straightforward, I expect that a judge would chose to exercise that discretion. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Simon: I understand what my noble friend said about the imperfections of the amendment. I will seek further advice and may come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 not moved.]

Lord Swinfen: moved Amendment No. 160:
	After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
	"CAUSING OR PERMITTING A CHILD UNDER 16 TO RIDE A CYCLE ON A ROAD WITHOUT PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR
	(1) Except as provided by regulations, it is an offence for any person to whom this section applies to cause or permit a child under the age of 16 years to ride a cycle on a road unless the child is wearing protective headgear, of such description as may be specified in regulations, in such manner as may be so specified.
	(2) Subsection (1) applies to the following persons—
	(a) any person who—
	(i) for the purposes of Part I of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12), has responsibility for the child;
	(ii) for the purposes of Part II of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37), has parental responsibilities (within the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36) in relation to, or has charge or care of the child;
	(iii) for the purposes of article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)), has parental responsibilities in relation to the child;
	(iv) (in relation to Northern Ireland) has care of the child or is, otherwise than by virtue of article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, legally obliged to maintain the child.
	(b) any owner of the cycle, if the owner is above the age of 15 years;
	(c) any person other than its owner who has custody of or is in possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it if that person is above the age of 15 years;
	(d) where the child is employed, his employer and any other person to whose orders the child is subject in the course of his employment.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
	(4) In this section—
	"regulations" means regulations under section (Regulations in relation to section (Causing or permitting a child under 16 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear)); and
	"road has"—
	(a) in England and Wales the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988;
	(b) in Scotland the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 54); and
	(c) in Northern Ireland the meaning given by article 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (1995/2994).
	(5) In this section and section (Regulations in relation to section (Causing or permitting a child under 16 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear)) "cycle" means a monocycle, a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle."

Lord Swinfen: In moving Amendment No. 160 tabled in my name and in that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 161. Dealing with Amendment No. 161 first, it enables the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the working of the new section inserted into the Bill by Amendment No. 160.
	The Bill is designed to reduce casualties on our roads. These amendments are aimed at reducing deaths and serious injury to cyclists under the age of 16. It is estimated that 90,000 road-related and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents occur every year in the United Kingdom. Of them, some 53 per cent—that is 100,000—involve children under the age of 16. This causes considerable distress to children and their families and great expense to the National Health Service.
	Properly worn cycle helmets have been shown to reduce head injury by up to 87 per cent. Protecting the brain is vital. Even a minor head injury can have distressing consequences, particularly in a child, including nausea, headaches, dizziness, memory problems and extreme tiredness. A more serious head injury can have devastating and permanent consequences, including death. According to Department of Trade and Industry leisure and home accident data published in 2002, an estimated 90,000 children aged 15 and under attend hospital for cycling-related injuries. Of these, nearly a third—26,000—will have sustained a head injury.
	Motorcyclists have had to wear a helmet since the 1970s. It has been compulsory for young horse and pony riders to wear a hard hat since 1992. Professional cyclists now have to wear a helmet while racing. That came in in May last year. I understand that the British Medical Association is supporting this amendment, as do charities which look after people who have suffered a brain injury, including Headway, Break and the Child Brain Injury Trust. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: I have put my name to this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said. I underline the fact that there has been a revolution in the view of the British Medical Association since its 1999 report on cycle helmets. The summary of evidence in its November 2004 briefing on this subject states:
	"The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries . . . Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents".
	A concern in the past has been that children would be discouraged from taking healthy exercise by the introduction of obligatory helmets. That is an understandable concern when there is so much anxiety about obesity in children.
	The BMA also finds:
	"Recent evidence has indicated that the introduction of compulsory legislation does not have a significant negative effect on cycling levels. Such legislation in the UK should not discourage cyclists and lead to a more sedentary lifestyle with consequent health risks".
	It is late. I shall not tire your Lordships much further tonight. This is a very important measure in improving protection for children and in protecting families from the distress that such accidents cause children. I urge the Committee to support at least the principle of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government might consider returning with something along the lines of this amendment. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Hanham: May I intervene briefly on the amendment and ask the movers, because I have not had a chance to speak to my noble friend Lord Swinfen about it, who will be responsible? As far as I can see, under the clause there is a person responsible, but if you were to prosecute this, in law, as things stand at the moment, it is just somebody. It could be a parent; it might be a guardian. It does not say. It might be a schoolteacher, but it does not say. What happens when the child goes out cycling on his own without his helmet on and falls off, which frequently happens? The amendment suggests that the provision relates to somebody, but it does not say who it is.

The Earl of Listowel: I note what the noble Baroness says. I am sure that the amendment is faulty in several ways, but I note that 20 states in the United States now have legislation along these lines and that there is legislation in Norway, Australia, New Zealand and several other countries. So, while I accept that the amendment itself may be faulty, I hope that she may feel able to support the principle in another better-phrased amendment brought forward on Report.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I support in principle Amendment No. 160. It seems to me that the saving of one child from death or injury would prove the worth of the amendment.

Lord Berkeley: I have a few problems with this matter. Of course it is a good idea to wear crash helmets. I wear one when I am cycling. But making people do it, and with the problems already identified, I think that you must be a little careful. We must also look at the proposal in a proportionate way. Why do we not make all pedestrians wear helmets because they might be run over by a car? We have to stop somewhere. I am looking at the transport statistics. We are talking about 500 child pedal cyclists casualties in 2004 out of a total of 2,800 casualties, so it is not a huge number—although of course any casualty, as other noble Lords have said, is serious. How would we enforce it? Should we make this provision rather than say something to pedestrians about wearing helmets for protection? It they are going to drive one of these people movers, whatever we call them, around should they will have to wear a helmet with a yellow light on top? I am not sure how practical this is and really how much benefit it would bring compared with all the hassle.

The Earl of Listowel: I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says. I recall what he said at Second Reading of his own experience of cycling in Oxford and having a high-speed vehicle—I think an ambulance—passing him. I cycled for seven years in central London on a daily basis. In the end I decided that it was unsafe and to stop cycling. It is far more dangerous to be on a bicycle, certainly in central London, than it is to be a pedestrian.
	If you look at the evidence from the BMA—and I hope perhaps on Report we might have a doctor speaking—wearing a helmet makes a considerable difference in terms of the level of harm caused to the brain by such accidents.

Lord Berkeley: I believe that wearing a helmet is right. I question whether the provision should be in primary legislation. I think that persuasion is the right way. The Government are doing a great deal to help to persuade responsible parents. I worry about it being in primary legislation.

The Earl of Listowel: I know that it is late. However, there has been considerable progress in recent years in encouraging people to wear helmets. A particularly resistant group has been boys. A noble Lord was telling me earlier how difficult it is to persuade his son to wear a helmet. If it is obligatory by law, it will make it easier for parents to insist that their children wear the requisite headgear. As a young man, I remember seeing friends cycling without proper protection. I shall not tire the Committee further.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the chance to intrude on the conversation. I congratulate the noble Lords on conducting a mini debate which has helped to elucidate the issues. Perhaps I may say how much I respect the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in moving and speaking to the amendment. They are right to focus on accident rates for children. We are all concerned with any deaths but in particular to young people.
	I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for putting the issue into context. I wish to emphasise how well we are doing on cycling. Cycling deaths are quite a low proportion of total road accidents. We have seen deaths and serious injuries for child cyclists reduced by 47 per cent compared with our baseline which was the average of 1994–98.

Earl Attlee: Could that welcome reduction be because they are wearing crash helmets?

Lord Davies of Oldham: That is a factor but given his noble friends' due regard for research, they propose the amendment because they do not believe the wearing of cycling helmets meets the safety standards. The wearing of cycling helmets may be a factor. The amendment is before us because young children do not in large numbers wear helmets. Nevertheless, we have got cycling accident rates down. We would say that that is because we have concentrated a great deal of energy on the issues of improving child cyclists' safety. Our programme includes the education of children and their carers about the dangers implicit in cycling, publicity, better child cycle training and improved infrastructure. It also includes the promotion of helmets because we are concerned, as are noble Lords, to see the wearing of helmets increase.
	Noble Lords will recognise that I have some difficulty in accepting the notion of the compulsory wearing of helmets. We are concerned to increase cycling. It is healthy for children. It is an excellent way of getting about. We want to encourage it. Increased exercise is a major part of our strategy to deal with child obesity. Cycling is an excellent form of exercise so we want children on their bikes.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that children are not put off by helmets. We are not convinced of that argument. We are fearful that if we indicate that you cannot get on your bike without a helmet the use of cycles will decrease and that will be our loss in so many ways. We are concerned about that factor. We are at one with the noble Lords who introduced the amendment in seeking to bring home to those who cycle the advantages of wearing helmets and we shall proceed to do that. We will also follow a whole range of strategies for increasing safer use of bikes by children.
	We have a big programme on cycle safety rolling out in the coming year. We have common objectives in mind. The question is whether those objectives would be realised through making helmets compulsory. At present we are not convinced of that, but we are keeping a very open mind on it. We regard the issue of such salience and significance that we are looking at every strategy that can be deployed to reduce cycling deaths. So we have an open mind and we will carry out our research. But, for the moment, we are worried that the compulsory use of helmets might reduce cycling, which would be a loss to the nation.

Baroness Hanham: I think that I owe the movers of the amendment an apology. It will teach me to intervene without reading further down the amendment. I see that subsection (2) delineates who would be responsible. I still have concerns about the prosecution aspect, but I apologise profusely for having intervened with entirely the wrong objection.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I think that the noble Baroness is being characteristically generous. I checked that out as I thought that the amendment was satisfactory in those terms because of the list. But there is a problem with regard to prosecution and who would be prosecuted. So the noble Baroness is not that far out. There are a few problems with regard to the amendment, which I will not go into in any further detail at this late stage. I understand that Members of the Committee have introduced this as a probing amendment to see how far we could go. I hope that I have given an adequate response.

Lord Swinfen: It would be interesting if the Minister would write to me with the problems that he sees with the drafting of the amendment. I would very much like to see it properly drafted and acceptable. I am very happy to look at who is responsible and who would do the prosecuting. I am delighted with the support that I have received, but I am somewhat disappointed with some of those who have tried to pour cold water on it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about who would enforce the legislation. Who enforces the legislation on the wearing of seat-belts or the wearing of helmets for motorcycle riders? Who enforces the rules on children under the age of 14 wearing hard hats when riding horses and ponies? To a certain extent, insurers will not cover people who are not belted up in their vehicles or who do not wear helmets when riding a motorcycle. Quite obviously, the police can see very easily and will stop and prosecute a motorcyclist riding along the highway without a helmet. School rules will help to ensure that any child cycling to school will wear a proper helmet and that it is properly fitted. If that is not being done today, schools are not taking their responsibility to the child seriously. They are responsible for the child when on school premises.
	Persuasion will work with some people, but not all parents are responsible. We know that. We all like to think that we are. Sometimes we allow our children to take greater risks and other people would think that we are being unwise. We all do it from time to time. I know also that we have gradually to let our children widen the bounds and take greater risks. But taking risks that we know could kill them or maim them for life is not, in my view, one of them.
	The Minister said that the number of deaths of child cyclists has been reduced by 40 per cent. I am delighted to hear that. It may be that some car users, which are a very nasty weapon to those riding a bicycle, are taking greater care. It may be that the warmer winter weather that we have had in the past few years has played a considerable part in that. It is much more difficult to see a cyclist when the snow is coming thick and fast compared with on a fine, dry, cold evening.
	I am all in favour of children taking more exercise—I can understand the Government's fight against obesity—but cycling is not the only form of exercise; there are many others. I well remember at the age of 10 cycling on the roads without a helmet. In those days such things had not been invented; there were no helmets for motorcyclists and many safety precautions in cars had not been invented. We must move forward; we must not be stick-in-the-muds.
	I shall read what the Minister and others who have taken part in this short debate have said, but I shall probably return to this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]

Lord Tanlaw: moved Amendment No. 162:
	After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
	"REPORT ON EFFECT OF ADVANCE OF TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR
	Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a report on the predicted changes in the number of road deaths and serious injuries that would result from advancing the time in Great Britain to two hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time during the period of summer time and to one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time during the period of winter time."

Lord Tanlaw: I am pleased to move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and other noble Lords who sit in different parts of the Chamber. It is a pity it has come at such a later hour, when we should keep our remarks to a minimum. The Minister has been at the wheel for many hours now and has driven the Bill extremely skilfully so far. With this amendment I am asking him to do a major U-turn.
	In a few days' time, on the last Sunday of this month, we turn the clocks back one hour, which will immediately result in darker evenings but lighter mornings. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, that will result in death or serious injury to about 450 people between now and this time next year. Therefore, I propose to move the amendment in the names of those as yet unnamed men, women and children who will become new road death statistics in the next six months. That will be entirely due to the maintenance of a darker evenings policy by both this Government and the previous administration after the passage of the British Summer Time Act 1972 and its subsequent orders.
	When is a road safety Bill not a road safety Bill? When it pays no attention to road safety. Yet every sentence from every noble Lord who has spoken has included the words "road safety". We are even talking about road safety for Segways, roller blades and skateboards. We are turning our backs on 450 people, including women and children, who will lose their lives simply due to the fact that we run a darker evenings policy.
	I am told that this year schoolchildren will be let out later, as I am sure the Minister will know. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents makes it quite clear that the majority of accidents occur around schools. There will be darker evenings as the children come out and, again according to RoSPA, most children are unescorted when they leave school and make their way home. I ask the Minister: is the death rate going to fall this year?
	The Meteorological Office has offered its thoughts about the future of this winter. It may be short, but it may be very sharp indeed. Very bad and inclement weather conditions will make driving conditions bad in the dark, around schools and around the homes of the elderly. It has been drawn to my attention that this imposes a curfew on the elderly. When sunset comes they have to leave the library to get home in what remains of the light of day. That is another problem that will occur on the roads this year.
	I do not know who is responsible for this. If the Minister says that the Department for Transport is not responsible, which department is? Last week, outside the Chamber, I asked the Minister with responsibility for science—he is head of the weights and measures department—whether he was responsible for making the decisions on lighter evenings. But, no, he is not; he deals only with the timescale. I asked him whether the Home Office was responsible; he was not sure. It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell me who is responsible. I believe that it should be the Department for Transport. Who is responsible? Who do we go to? Who do we ask? I have been asking this question for years in this House and I have never had a sensible answer yet from either administration on either side.
	Who is responsible for the clocks? I once rang up the Home Office to ask for the department which was dealing with changing the clocks. There were two ladies in that department. I asked them what they did. They said that they were responsible for changing clocks on the two days of the year on which it is done. I asked them what they did for the rest of the year. They said that they dealt with royal processions or something like that. I would be very interested to know how many people work on this problem in the Home Office or wherever. What do they do for the rest of the year after they have seen me change the clocks back? It is a question to which I have yet to find an answer.
	On a more serious note, after the tragic Hatfield rail accident, it was brought to the attention of the relatives of those who had died that they could bring litigation on grounds of corporate negligence against the individuals who were responsible for the deaths through lack of maintenance. Will the sad relatives of those who will die at the end of this year bring charges of ministerial or executive negligence?
	What has happened in the past 16 years? No statistics have been produced, nor effort made, to demonstrate whether lighter evenings are going to reduce accident rates. If the Minister can say that darker evenings will reduce the accident rate, he must say so, and he must give facts and figures to prove it. But I suspect that an inter-departmental muddle takes place and that nobody wants to take responsibility. So the Minister is going to say, "I am very sorry. It's a wonderful idea, but we can't do anything about it. It's not my department". But will he please say which department it is?
	It is about time someone took a grip on this problem and focused on it one way or another. We really need more facts and figures. Those figures have not been forthcoming. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—of which the noble Lord has been a president, I believe—states in its report that it would like to see a two-year trial period for single and double summer time. Why cannot this happen? Why cannot we do it? Who is stopping it? Is it the party managers? I have accused party managers in the past, and I accuse them again now. They have absolutely no right to do this in a democracy. They are simply out to try to persuade the government of the day. The attitude of the party managers on the other side was just the same for the same reason. They did not address this problem because they were worried about votes. Which is more important: lives or votes? We call this the Road Safety Bill yet we turn our backs on this issue.
	I know that the Minister and his party are very conscious of road safety. Every aspect has been touched on in this Bill. Would he please not ignore this amendment and give us a positive response? Perhaps the amendment does not use the right words, but I am sure that can be adjusted. Can we please move forward from the present static position? I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I have to say that I am not terribly pleased about this amendment. It may well be fine in the east of England, but it would not be very helpful in north-west Scotland. For their own reasons, the Icelanders have opted to observe GMT, despite the fact that Reykjavik is 18 degrees west. The noble Lord's amendment would impose on the citizens of Stornoway, for example, even darker mornings. Stornoway is seven degrees west. If we were to move the United Kingdom's time forward to GMT plus one, Stornoway would effectively be at 22 degrees west. This would condemn it to mornings in the middle of winter which would be struggling to become light by eleven o'clock. That would not be helpful.

Lord Tanlaw: Before the noble Lord sits down, presumably they have electric light in Stornaway, as they have elsewhere. In fact there is more surplus electricity in Scotland than anywhere else.
	I am a hill farmer myself, in Eskdalemuir, although we are not as far north as that. There has been a major change in the farming scene. Farming is done indoors now, and forestry is done with floodlights. The Health and Safety Executive makes sure that builders are no longer frozen on to ladders, another reason why we have to keep the time as it is. The whole situation has changed. I am sorry for people in Stornaway. I am well aware of their latitude and longitude, but that makes no difference: they have electric light, and they get light in the evenings. RoSPA has said there are fewer accidents in Scotland, and there will be fewer with lighter evenings.

Baroness Hanham: Before my noble friend stands up to support this Motion, I have the same reservations about it as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Children have to go to school in the morning. We are worried about older people in the evenings, but children have to go to school. These days they are expected to walk to school—they are not meant to be bussed around in cars—and if they are doing so at eight or nine in the morning and it is still dark, it seems to me that is just as bad as it being dark in the evening. I would have thought it best if things were left alone.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the customary way the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has introduced this amendment. On the question of children in the morning, drivers of vehicles are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in the morning, but in the evening they are tired and make mistakes.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, talked about votes. I would have thought this was a vote-winner. It is beneficial for everyone. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, talked about the problem of Stornaway. We understand the problem, but the amendment does not alter the number of hours of daylight they have in Stornaway in the winter. They do not have many hours, full stop.
	I am sure the Minister will point out other difficulties than the road safety aspect. He nods his head. There are advantages outside road safety as well, however; for instance, leisure. September is a nice month of the year—the weather is nice—but it gets dark at eight o'clock, which means it is not such a good time to go on holiday. If we adopted the noble Lord's amendment, it would get dark at nine o'clock, not eight, which would be good for business. Indeed, when we do business, we are adrift from our continental partners.
	I cannot see many negative aspects of adopting this amendment. Yes, there will be some more accidents in the morning, but there will be fewer in the evening. There is a thought that we will save about 400 casualties per annum.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I am an enthusiastic supporter of the amendment. I have been in Parliament now for 50 years, and this subject is debated every single year, rather like fixed Easter. We all know that the reason, let us not beat about the bush, is these Scottish farmers. The fact is that Scotland now claims to be very independent, so they can have their own time. I wager, though, that if this is passed, it will be a greater contribution to road safety than anything else in the Bill.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I rise very briefly. As the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has said, RoSPA supports this amendment, and would appreciate a trial period to see how things go.

Lord Berkeley: I very much support the amendment. I have been a great believer in this for years. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is concerned about children going to school in the dark in the morning, but drivers are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in the morning—except for the odd teenager. Coming back from school in the evening, not only will children be more tired, and it is probably better that they are in the daylight then, but they also often go off to after-school activities and they have two journeys in the evening as opposed to one in the morning. So I think that it more than balances out.
	If the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is that worried about cows or sheep which can tell the time in Scotland, could we not remove the reserved status and let the Scots do their own thing and give them independence? We could change the clocks at the border.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for suggesting that; I did not know he was a convert. We also have to bear in mind that before the United Kingdom moves out of GMT, as the largest country in the GMT zone we also have to consider the Republic of Ireland, Portugal and Iceland. They would have to adjust their time if the United Kingdom did so. We have to remember the larger picture.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for the way in which he introduced the debate and for the discussion he has provoked. However, the discussion answers one of his major questions. There is not universal support for the proposition. It is not party managers who in dark corners are perpetrating anti-democratic sentiments and imposing decisions on the rest of the nation—one has only to look at the Conservative Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I will also be expressing from this Front Bench some reservations about this proposal. Of course, we are reflecting opinion.
	I concede straightforwardly that the noble Lord is right when he brings this issue forward in a Road Safety Bill and extols its merit in terms of road safety. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, is absolutely right too. It would be a major contribution to road safety if this change were effected. We know the statistics, and no one is better qualified than my noble friend Lady Gibson in her role as president of RoSPA to identify the figures which show the number of road deaths that would be prevented if we adopted this proposal. So I am not going to gainsay that argument; far from it, I accept the position entirely.
	Why is it that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches and indeed our own Front Bench have reservations about the proposal? It is because the road safety issue, important though it is, is not the only issue. There are wider interests at stake. We are obliged to take those wider interests into account. One could produce maximum levels of road safety if one suspended a whole range of commercial operations in this country that are greatly to the advantage of us all in producing our wealth and happiness, but which are extremely dangerous because they entail moving people around and people can be injured or even killed by transport.
	So road safety and safety issues cannot be the dominant matter, although in this Bill they are the issue before us. I accept the noble Lord's statistics and arguments on the contribution to road safety. I am afraid that he is obliged to recognise that we genuinely are taking wider interests into account.
	I cannot answer the noble Lord any better than that. However, I can answer one factual point. I will put him out of his misery in trying to find out which department is responsible for this. As he will know, this is a Government without seams. We are so interconnected that there is no question of separating one department from another. Therefore we are all equally responsible for the good things and no one is culpable for the bad. However, I will enlighten him on this point. The department responsible for summer time—and I think he probably did telephone the right department—is the Department of Trade and Industry, which regrettably is not represented here this evening. However, I do not think that it would present the case any differently from how I did. It may not put quite the same emphasis on road safety as I can—as I have learnt at the Dispatch Box from the wisdom of the Benches behind me and opposite.
	The department would also attest to the fact that there are wider interests to take into account, which is why we are still unpersuaded of the case. Nevertheless, I do not doubt that there is increasing pressure for it. We would be blind if we did not recognise how many more people argue for it this decade than 10 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, alluded to that. I wish the noble Lord well in his endeavours. He has not persuaded us sufficiently this evening. I cannot accept his amendment but I accept his statistics.

Earl Attlee: The Minister has been extremely helpful in accepting the road safety argument, but he has not actually come up with cast-iron reasons for his argument that all sorts of problems will be caused. He has not adduced any other reason why we should not go down this route. There must be contrary arguments but he has not adduced any.

Lord Tanlaw: I thank the Minister for his response and, indeed, acceptance of the fact that the amendment is connected to road safety. I admit that I was somewhat surprised when he said that the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible, but I have taken note and I shall approach the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, again to ask him to re-examine the issue.
	I have been on this subject for many years—I have been in this House for 34 years. From time to time I have raised the issue in Bills, Questions and so on, but I have yet to discover any wider interests, except those of party managers. I do not know what those wider interests are. I am a Scottish hill farmer. I was brought up in Ayrshire but my clan comes from further north. I am well aware of the Scottish problem but it is not a problem now. We have electricity and modern farming methods. We are no different from anywhere else, whether it is Stavanger or Reykjavik. We are not in the Middle Ages for heaven's sake.
	I am amazed at what the Minister said. I am disappointed and I may wish to come back to the matter when I discover those wider interests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 not moved.]
	Clause 43 [Minor corrections]:
	[Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 not moved.]
	Clause 43 agreed to
	[Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 not moved.]

Viscount Simon: moved Amendment No. 168A:
	After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
	"PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES
	In section 64A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (photographing of suspects etc) after paragraph (a) of subsection (1B), insert—
	"(aa) a person reported for summons for a motoring offence,"."

Viscount Simon: I should love not to have to move this amendment. However, it is another amendment introduced by the police to another piece of legislation that will have a profound impact on roads policing. I have previously referred to this in a speech.
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act amended the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to permit certain offenders to be photographed at the scene of the crime. Indeed, as I have previously suggested, a driver who commits the offence of not wearing a seatbelt may have his or her photograph taken when issued with a fixed-penalty ticket. That facility is denied in circumstances when a driver is prosecuted for anti-social driving by means of a summons—a process that inevitably takes a long time to conclude and creates a weakness in the system.
	On cross-examination, officers have had to admit that with the passage of time and the number of people with whom they have come into contact, their recollection of the particular offender is compromised—a weakness which many defence lawyers seek to exploit. With this amendment, I propose to close this loophole. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: My noble friend Lord Simon may be aware that the Government introduced the ability to photograph suspects elsewhere than at a police station under Section 116 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Those provisions are likely to be commenced in January 2006 and highlight the benefits of photographic evidence of the individual being available to a constable and others with enforcement powers.
	I recognise that the noble Viscount's amendment is very much in the same vein and support its aim. It is a part of a wider issue of enabling photographs to be taken elsewhere than in a police station for all those reported for summons irrespective of the nature of the offence. I understand that the Home Office will consider whether such provision should be made and is looking at including this issue in a public consultation document on police powers to be published later this summer. That should provide an evidence-based approach for consideration in a future legislative programme. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Simon: I am not certain whether I heard my noble friend say that that will allow photographs to be taken in all circumstances. Am I right?

Baroness Crawley: I believe that my noble friend is right.

Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 169:
	After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
	"PROOF NECESSARY TO DRIVE HGV ON RESTRICTED ROAD
	After section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (prohibition of parking of HGVs on verges, central reservations and footways) insert—
	"19A PROOF NECESSARY TO DRIVE HGV ON RESTRICTED ROAD
	A person shall not drive a heavy commercial vehicle (as defined in section 20 of this Act) on a restricted road (as defined in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) unless he has documentary proof of his need to drive on that road.""

Lord Bradshaw: I will briefly describe why I am moving this amendment. I do not expect a reply now; I shall expect it in discussions with the Minister. The amendment seeks to prevent the police having to follow a vehicle driving on a road on which that vehicle is banned. At present, the police have to follow a vehicle right the way through the area over which the restriction applies. Under the amendment, if the driver is making a delivery or a collection anywhere along the route which is restricted, the policeman would be able to ask the driver to produce documentary evidence of his necessity to deliver to premises, or collect from premises, along the route. It would greatly ease the burden on the police and it would make prosecution of those people who use short cuts through rural areas very much easier. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he moved the amendment. I should be only too glad to discuss the matter with him. The Government accept, of course, that large goods vehicles should not use unsuitable roads. Local authorities already have powers to impose restrictions in that regard. There are some difficulties with regard to the amendment, but I shall discuss those with the noble Lord and we may be able to make progress. As I say, I am grateful to him for the way in which he moved the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 169A to 169F not moved.]
	Clause 44 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 171 not moved.]
	Schedule 5 [Repeals and revocations]:
	[Amendments Nos. 171A to 171C had been retabled as Amendments Nos. 172A, 174A and 178A.]

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 172:
	Page 98, line 3, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 66(8), the word "and" after the definition of "hiring agreement"."

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the amendments in this group correct minor drafting errors and omissions in Schedule 5 to the Bill, which contains repeals and revocations, including repeals of some spent enactments. These amendments ensure that the correct repeals and revocations are made with respect to the giving of fixed penalty notices by vehicle examiners. The new system of endorsement is introduced by Clauses 7, 8 and 9—together with Schedule 2 and 3 to the Bill, on driver training and driver instruction. I urge noble Lords to support these technical amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendments Nos. 172A to 178:
	Page 98, line 32, leave out "paragraph 6" and insert "paragraphs 6 and 9"
	Page 100, line 8, leave out "(i)" and insert "(iii)"
	Page 101, line 22, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 30—(a)   in subsection (1)(b), the words "the counterpart of his licence or", and(b)   in subsection (2)(b), the words "on the counterpart of his licence or"." 
		
	
	Page 103, line 9, leave out "99" and insert "98A(7)"
	Page 105, leave out line 24.
	Page 105, line 26, leave out "23(b)" and insert "23(a)(ii) and (iii) and (b)"
	Page 105, line 30, after "29(a)," insert—
	
		
			  
			  "(   )   paragraph 35(a)," 
		
	
	Page 105, line 39, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "Section 43(3)." 
		
	
	Page 105, line 47, leave from "17," to end of line 48 and insert—
	"( ) paragraph 21(2),
	( ) in paragraph 25(2)(b), the word "(c)," and
	( ) paragraph 26(2)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 179 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List]

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendments Nos. 180 to 185:
	Page 106, line 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "(   )   paragraph 1," 
		
	
	Page 106, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
	
		
			  
			  "(   )   paragraph 23(2) to (4) and (7), 
			  (   )   paragraph 24(3)," 
		
	
	Page 106, line 13, leave out "30(b)" and insert "30"
	Page 107, line 17, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 195(3), the words "is exercised". 
		
	
	Page 107, line 26, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40) In Schedule 4, paragraph 73(5)." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 9, leave out "8" and insert "9"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 45 to 48 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.
	Wednesday, 26 October 2005.